State v. Farrell
| Decision Date | 26 October 1886 |
| Citation | 23 Mo.App. 176 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOSEPH T. FARRELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, E. A. NOONAN, Judge.
Affirmed.
Upon information filed, the defendant was convicted of having unlawfully in his possession, and of unlawfully selling in this city pinnated grouse, within the season when the catching and killing of said birds is prohibited by law. He was fined for each offence. The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, whereby the defendant admitted the possession and sale of the birds as charged, and the state admitted that the birds were killed partly outside of this state, and partly in this state, at a season when the killing was not prohibited.
The defendant, thereupon, took an appeal to the supreme court on the ground that the case involved a construction of the constitution of the United States, and that the supreme court had appellate jurisdiction thereof. The supreme court, upon inspection of the record, ordered the case to be transferred to this court, but filed no opinion in so doing.
The action of the supreme court in ordering a transfer of the record to this court, is necessarily a denial of the defendant's claim that the case involves a constitutional point. But, even were we justified to hold that the order of transfer was made with a view of having us decide all the points arising in the case, we would still have to affirm the judgment of the trial court, as we have repeatedly decided heretofore that the offence charged consists in having the game in possession or selling it, regardless of the fact where and when it was killed, and that the law does not violate any provision of the constitution of the United States or of this state. The State v. Judy, 7 Mo. App. 524; The State v. Randolph, 1 Mo. App. 17.
The judgment is affirmed.
All the judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Weber
...194 Mo. 707; Haggerty v. Ice Mfg. & Storage Co., 143 Mo. 246; State v. Randolph, 1 Mo.App. 15; State v. Judy, 7 Mo.App. 524; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo.App. 176; Greer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519; People rel. v. Hesterberg, 184 N.Y. 126; In re Deininger, 108 F. 623. OPINION BURGESS, J. At the......
-
State v. Kofines
...Am. Rep. 548]; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St. 209 [37 N. E. 259, 46 Am. St. Rep. 566]; Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409, 415; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo. App. 176 and cases there cited; State v. Saunders, ubi sup.; Territory v. Evans, ubi sup. Whilst the fundamental principles upon which the common p......
-
Haggerty v. St. Louis Ice Manufacturing & Storage Co.
...have in possession during the period known as the "closed season." State v. Randall, 1 Mo.App. 16; State v. Judy, 7 Mo.App. 524; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo.App. 176; Geer Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519; McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240; State v. Farrell, ......
-
Geer v. State of Connecticut
...Allen v. Wyckoff, 48 N. J. Law, 93, 2 Atl. 659; Roth v. State, 51 Ohio St. 209, 37 N. E. 259; Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 415; State v. Farrell, 23 Mo. App. 176, and cases there cited; State v. Saunders, ubi supra; Territory v. Evans, ubi While the fundamental principles upon which the common......