State v. Findley
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Citation | 77 Mo. 338 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. FINDLEY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court.--HON. J. R. WOODSIDE, Judge.
REVERSED.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
Livingston & Green for respondent.
At the April term, 1879, of the Howell county circuit court defendant was indicted for selling intoxicating liquors as a druggist in less quantities than one gallon. The indictment charges the selling to have been done “on or about the months of January, February and March, 1879.” To this indictment a demurrer was interposed by defendant, which was sustained, and from this action of the court the State has appealed. The only objection presented by the demurrer is, that the indictment charged several offenses in one count, in this, that it charged the selling to have been done on or about the months of January, February and March.
Under the rulings of this court in the cases of Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 9; State v. Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425; State v. Myers, 20 Mo. 411; State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236, the point raised by the demurrer is not well taken, and the action of the court in sustaining it was erroneous. As time is not the essence of the offense, it is stated with sufficient certainty. Had the indictment charged the offense to have been committed on the first day of January, the State, on the trial, would have been permitted to show that it was committed on any other day than that alleged in the indictment, provided it was within twelve months before the indictment was found. R. S., § 1821; State v. Magrath, 19 Mo. 678; State v. Stumbo, 26 Mo. 306; State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, in which all concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rinker v. United States
... ... day of August, 1904, and thereby makes the time 'so ... uncertain as to cover any possible period. ' (2) It does ... not state that the purpose in depositing the letter in the ... post office was its mailing or delivery, and thus omits an ... essential element of the ... 689, 696; United States v. Howard (D.C.) 132 ... F. 325, 335; State v. Sammons, 95 Ind. 22; ... Kenney v. State, 5 R.I. 385; State v ... Findley, 77 Mo. 338; State v. Brooks, 33 Kan ... 708, 711, 7 P. 591. The time of its commission is not made an ... ingredient of this offense. The common ... ...
-
State v. Bennett
... ... The ... allegations as to time are sufficiently certain under the ... statute which declares immaterial any omission ... [14 S.W. 868] ... of such statement where time is not of the essence of the ... offense (R. S. 1889, sec. 4115; State v. Findley , 77 ... Mo. 338), and those respecting the persons, with whom the ... specially alleged unlawful acts were had, are probably more ... definite than appears to have been required in some other ... cases involving unlicensed acts. State v. Fanning ... (1866), supra; State v. Baker , 71 Mo ... ...
-
Greene County v. Wilhite
...v. Rush, 77 Mo. 586. Nor is the objection in regard to time well taken. Edwards v. Burns, 67 Mo. 377; State v. Small, 31 Mo. 197; State v. Findley, 77 Mo. 338; Boyce Chrysty, 47 Mo. 70. The bond was properly construed, held to be valid by the court, and the court properly so instructed the ......
-
State v. Fairgrieve
...enough for a good indictment, and to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him. State v. Nations, 75 Mo. 53; State v. Findley, 77 Mo. 338; State Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; State v. Wall, 39 Mo. 532; State v. Coulter, 46 Mo. 565; State v. Hedrick, 20 Mo.App. 629. The indictment is......