State v. English
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Citation | 2 Mo. 182 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ENGLISH. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1829 |
2 Mo. 182
THE STATE
v.
ENGLISH.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
October Term, 1829.
TOMPKINS, J.a1
English was indicted for exchanging on the 1st of April 1828, one gallon of spiritous liquors with an Indian, for a gun The bill was found at the August term of the year 1829. The jury also finds in these words that “at a Circuit Court held for the county of Clay on the 25th of November, 1828, being within the space of one year from and after the commission of the offense aforesaid, by him the said Charles English, the grand jury of the county of Clay found a bill of indictment against him, the said Charles, charging him with the same offense aforesaid, and that the said bill of indictment was prosecuted, and was pending in the said court until the 5th day of August, 1829, at which time the proceedings had upon the said indictment for the
[2 Mo. 183]
offense aforesaid, were reversed and set aside by the said court, and the said indictment was quashed and held for nought; and so the jurors do say, that the said offense so as aforesaid found, was committed by him, the said Charles, in manner and form aforesaid, within one year preceding the time of their present finding, contrary to the form,” &c.
Offenders of this kind are by law to be prosecuted within one year after the commission of the offense, provided that where the indictment has been quashed or the proceedings set aside or reversed, the time during the pending of the said indictment shall not be reckoned within the statute. In our opinion the time of the commission of the offense might properly have been laid within a year preceding the time of finding the bill; and evidence of the quashing of the first indictment might have been introduced by the State, to account for the last bill not being found within the time limited by law. But the State having chosen to set out in the present indictment as well the previous bill and proceedings thereon, as the commission of the offense for which the appellant was prosecuted, it became necessary to use, in stating the finding of the first bill and proceedings thereon, all the certainty required in charging the commission of the offense. It is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bradley
...the statute of limitations did not run. Rev. Stat., sec. 1707; State v. Primm, 61 Mo. 166; State v. Owens, 78 Mo. 376; State v. English, 2 Mo. 182. III. The instructions given for defendant and those given for the state are not in conflict, nor inconsistent with each other. Taken together, ......
-
State v. Hall
...time during which it was pending is not to be computed as part of the time of the limitation prescribed for the offense. State v. English, 2 Mo. 182; R. S. 1899, sec. 2422; State ex rel. v. Primm, 61 Mo. 166; State v. Owen, 78 Mo. 368; State v. Hansbrough, 181 Mo. 352; 12 Cyc. 258. (3) The ......
-
State v. Nicholas
...the prosecution within the exception of the Statute of Limitations, and is, therefore bad, and is barred by the statute. State v. English, 2 Mo. 182; State v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 268. (2) The court erred in admitting incompetent, immaterial, irrelevant and illegal testimony. Art. 2, sec. 22, Con......
-
State v. Lamar
...proceedings under the first with all the certainty [213 Mo.App. 311] required in charging the commission of the offense (State v. English, 2 Mo. 182), but since that decision the law-making power has been constantly striving to simplify, as far as is consistent with justice, the rules of cr......