State v. Epperson

• Decision Date: 30 June 1835
• Parties: THE STATE v. THOMAS EPPERSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

4 Mo. 90

THE STATE

v.THOMAS EPPERSON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June Term, 1835.

ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

TOMPKINS, J.

This was a prosecution instituted before a justice of the peace by one William Langford against Epperson the defendant in error, for an assault and battery under the statutes giving justices of the peace jurisdiction in cases of breaches of the peace passed 19th February, 1825, and 18th January, 1831. The trial before the justice took place on 23d February, 1835. Judgment against the defendant was rendered on the same day and an appeal was prayed on the next day, viz: 24th February. It was insisted on the behalf of the State “that the Circuit Court should have dismissed the appeal for the following reasons.--1st, the want of notice of the appeal, the same not being granted on the day of the trial, see Rev. Code, 481, § 23. 2d, the appeal not being prayed at the trial or on the day of trial--Rev. Code, p. 141, § 6. ALLEN for the State. On the part of the defendant in error it is contended that the writ of error was improperly sued out on the part of the State because the defendant in penal cases cannot be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense, see Constitution of the United States, article 6th of the amendments; reference is made also to the Constitution of the State of Missouri, declaration rights, § 10. The defendant further insists that the notice of an appeal to the State, to the officers of the State, or any one of them, is not required by the laws of Missouri, and refers to Rev. Code, 141, section 6. It is sufficient that the appeal is taken, and the officer acting for the State is bound to know what transpires in the clerk's office relative to his duties, and that the law only contemplates a notice in civil suits between individuals. Reference to Rev. Code, p. 481, and the reason of the destinction is clear. The object of the notice in civil suits is to put the opposite party in possession of the fact of an appeal being taken that he may prepare for his defense by having witnesses summoned. In appeals from State prosecutions, the justice is required to recognize witnesses, &c. and puts the State always in a state of readiness. Reference to Rev. Code, p. 141. Upon the subject of taking the appeal on the day of trial, the statute provides that in all cases within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace the party shall have liberty to appeal within ten days after rendering such judgment, Rev. Code, page 480. The party remains in custody of the constable until the penalty is paid o appeal taken, Rev....