State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 12 October 1891 |
| Citation | 106 Mo. 230,17 S.W. 295 |
| Parties | STATE v. DAVIS et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county; C. H. S. GOODMAN, Judge.
Davis and others were indicted for disturbing the peace by using indecent language, threatening, and fighting. Defendants were convicted, and appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, where the judgment was affirmed. On defendants' motion, the case was transferred to the supreme court, on the ground that the decision was in conflict with the opinion of the St. Louis court of appeals. Affirmed.
J. C. Wilson, for appellants. The Attorney General, for the State.
Defendants were indicted in the circuit court of Harrison county for disturbing the peace of a family by loud, offensive, and indecent conversation, and by threatening, challenging, and fighting. Being tried and convicted, they appealed to the Kansas City court of appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and on their motion the case was transferred to this court, on the ground that the decision was in conflict with the opinion of the St. Louis court of appeals in the case of State v. Bach, 25 Mo. App. 554. But as the opinion in State v. Bach has been overruled by the St. Louis court of appeals in State v. McDaniel, 40 Mo. App. 356; State v. Fare, 39 Mo. App. 110; State v. Parker, Id. 116; and State v. Buck, 43 Mo. App. 443, — there is now no conflict between the two courts of appeals on the question involved, and hence there is nothing for us to decide, the correct doctrine having been announced in State v. Buck, State v. McDaniel, State v. Fare, and State v. Parker, supra. Judgment affirmed. All of this division concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ladd
...which followed the language of the statute was not sufficient, but later overruled this case; and the Supreme Court, in State v. Davis, 106 Mo. 230, 17 S. W. 295, held the latter ruling correct. This, I think, is the last ruling of the Supreme Court on this subject and should be followed. I......
- State v. Davis