State v. England
| Decision Date | 31 January 1854 |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 386 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. ENGLAND, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An indictment commenced thus: &c. Held, sufficient.
Appeal from Hickory Circuit Court.
F. P. Wright, for appellant.
I. The indictment does not run in the name of the state of Missouri, as required by the constitution.
II. It is submitted that a new trial should have been granted on account of the failure of proof.
Gardenhire, (attorney general,) for the state.
The grand jury, at the September term, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-two, of the Circuit Court, within and for the county of Hickory, indicted Joseph England, with some three others, for gaming.
At the September term, 1853, the defendant, England, and two of the others, appeared in court, and filed their motion to quash the indictment, which motion is as follows: “The said defendants come and moved the court to quash the indictment, because the same is insufficient in law, because it does not state that the grand jurors were of the state of Missouri, and for other reasons.”
The court overruled this motion, and the defendants then plead not guilty; a jury was impanneled, which found the defendants guilty, and assessed their punishment at a fine of ten dollars each.
The defendants afterwards moved for a new trial, which was refused them. They then moved in arrest of judgment as follows; “The defendants come and move the court to arrest the judgment in this cause, because the judgment is insufficient in law; because the prosecution is not in the name of the state of Missouri, and for other causes.” This motion the court also overruled; the defendant, England, excepted, and filed his bill of exceptions, and brings the case here by appeal.
This court will not notice the motion for a new trial; there was evidence touching the charge against the defendants, and the weight and sufficiency of it, to establish the guilt, was properly left to the jury; their verdict was satisfactory to the court before which the trial was had, and this court will not interfere in such a case.
1. The main question relied on for the reversal of the judgment of the Circuit Court, arises on the indictment itself. The appellant's counsel contends that this prosecution is not carried on in the name of the state, as is required by our state constitution. It becomes this court, therefore, to examine this indictment carefully. The indictment is as follows, to-wit:
“State of Missouri, ) In the Hickory Circuit Court,--September term, County of Hickory, )
A. D. 1852.
The grand jurors for the state of_______, impanneled, charged and sworn to inquire within and for the body of the county of Hickory aforesaid, upon their oath present, that Joseph England, David Low, Young J. Skinner and John H. Brannon, late of the county of Hickory aforesaid,” &c., (charging the offense properly,) and then concludes thus: “contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state.”
The defect complained of consists in omitting to insert the word “ Missouri ” after the words “state of,” in the commencement of the indictment.
All writs and process shall run, and all prosecutions shall be conducted in the name of the “state of Missouri.” All writs shall be tested by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
... ... 604; ... State v. Dunn, 18 Mo. 224; State v. Hays, ... 23 Mo. 324; State v. Holme, 54 Mo. 161; State v ... Underwood, 57 Mo. 49 ... Nat ... C. Dryden and William L. Morsey, for defendant in error, ... cited: Wag. Stat. 1090, sec. 27; State v. England, ... 19 Mo. 386; Williams v. State, 30 Tex. 404; ... McBean v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 20; Dutell v ... State, 4 Greene (Iowa), 125; Wise v. State, 2 ... Kan. 419; State v. Holme, 54 Mo. 161; State v ... Hudson, 59 Mo. 138; State v. Schoenwald, 31 Mo ... 147; State v. Starr, 38 Mo. 270; 3 ... ...
-
State v. Cutter
...cited State v. Waters, April term, 1877, of this court; State v. Gilbert, 13 Vt. 647; State v. Creight, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 169; State v.England, 19 Mo. 386; State v. Freeman, 21 Mo. 481; Kirk v. the State, 6 Mo. 469; State v. Hamilton, 7 Mo. 301; Rose v. State, Minor, (Ala.) 28; 1 Bishop Crim.......
- State v. Williamson
-
State v. Waltham
...raised to the indictment. I have examined it carefully, and find no substantial defect. It is better than the one sustained in The State v. England, 19 Mo. 386, and fully describes the offense. After the evidence was submitted, the circuit attorney opened the case to the jury, and after the......