State v. Cobb

Decision Date16 May 1905
Citation113 Mo. App. 156,87 S.W. 551
PartiesSTATE v. COBB.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

2. Laws 1903, p. 163, § 4, provides that every person "desiring" to operate any automobile propelled by steam, etc., shall obtain a license from the license commissioner if in a city, or, if "desired" to operate in any county outside the corporate limits of such city, shall obtain a license from the county clerk. Held, that an indictment for violating such section, substantially following the language thereof, was not objectionable for failure to contain the word "desire."

3. Under Laws 1903, p. 163, § 4, providing that any person desiring to operate an automobile in a city must procure a license from the license commissioner thereof, and if he desires to operate it in the county outside the city limits he shall procure a license from the county clerk of such county, an automobile owner is required to take out a license in each and every county over the roads of which he desires to run his automobile.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ralls County; David H. Eby, Judge.

R. W. Cobb was convicted of running an automobile without license, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was charged by an indictment preferred by the grand jury of Ralls county with running an automobile propelled by gasoline power over the streets of New London, a city in said county, and over the public roads of said county, without having a license permitting him so to do. Defendant moved to quash the indictment on the following grounds: "(1) Because the said indictment does not charge any offense against the defendant herein. (2) Because the facts charged in said indictment do not constitute any crime or offense against the laws of the state of Missouri. (3) Because the act of the Legislature of the state of Missouri entitled `An act regulating the operation and speed of automobiles on the public streets, roads and highways of this state, fixing the amount of license, and prescribing a penalty for violating same,' approved March 23, 1903, is contrary to the Constitution of this state and against the Constitution of the United States." The motion to quash was overruled, and the issues were submitted to the court (a jury being waived) on the following agreed statement of facts: "(1) It is agreed that the defendant on the 11th day of October, 1903, in Ralls county, Missouri, willfully ran and operated an automobile, which was then and there propelled by gasoline, over the public highways, streets, and roads of this state, to wit, in and upon and over the public road and highway known as the Hannibal and New London gravel road, leading from the city of Hannibal, Marion county, Missouri, to the city of New London, in Ralls county, Missouri, and in and upon and over the public streets of the city of New London, in said Ralls county, Missouri, to wit, the streets known and designated on the plat of said city of New London as Main street, Third street, College street, Mayhall street Fourth street, Barkley street, and Depot street, without taking out and having and obtaining from the county clerk of said Ralls county a license authorizing the operating and running of said automobile. (2) That said defendant lives and has his place of residence in the city of Hannibal, in Marion county, Missouri, and that prior to said 11th day of October, 1903, the defendant had obtained from the license commissioner of the city of Hannibal aforesaid a license authorizing the operating of said automobile in said city, and that said license was in force on the 11th day of October, 1903. And that prior to said October 11, 1903, the defendant obtained from the county clerk of Marion county, Missouri, a license authorizing the operating of said automobile in said Marion county, which last-mentioned license was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • City of St. Louis v. King
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1910
    ...Springs v. Ettenson, 188 Mo. 132; Independence v. Knoepker, 205 Mo. 342; Lohmeyer v. St. Louis Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 685; State v. Cobb, 113 Mo.App. 156. (5) constitutional right to engage in business or to practice a profession does not imply any right to carry it on in a manner that may be......
  • City of St. Louis v. Williams
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1911
    ... ... subject to the Constitution and Laws of Missouri," and ... that the said ordinance is in direct conflict with the ... general law of the State regulating automobiles and is ... therefore void. As the defendant was convicted, sentenced and ... fined for a supposed violation of a void ... (Laws 1903, p. 162) required that a license be procured in ... each county in which an automobile was operated ( State v ... Cobb, 113 Mo.App. 156, 87 S.W. 551), and that the number ... of such license be displayed upon the vehicle. It was ... necessary under the Act of 1903 ... ...
  • Kane v. Supreme Tent K. M. W.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 16, 1905
    ... ... on the trial, that the defendant is a fraternal benefit society incorporated under the laws of Michigan, and licensed to do business in the state of Missouri; admitted the issuance of a benefit certificate to Walsh for the sum of $1,000, payable to plaintiff, as beneficiary, on the death of ... ...
  • City of St. Louis v. Williams
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1911
    ...act of 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 162) required that a license be procured in each county in which an automobile was operated (State v. Cobb, 113 Mo. App. 156, 87 S. W. 551), and that the number of such license be displayed upon the vehicle. It was necessary under the act of 1903 to secure 115 lic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT