State v. Flick
| Decision Date | 01 November 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 11757.,11757. |
| Citation | 179 S.W. 768 |
| Parties | STATE v. FLICK. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cole County; D. H. Harris, Special Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Nettie Flick was convicted of keeping a bawdyhouse, and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Fenton E. Luckett, of Jefferson City, for appellant. D. W. Peters, of Jefferson City, for the State.
Defendant was indicted for keeping a bawdyhouse in Jefferson City. She was convicted, and has appealed.
The chief complaint is that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to continue the cause. The circumstances were these: The indictment was returned by the grand jury at 11 o'clock a. m. of March 10, 1915. In one half hour she was brought into court under arrest, arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. The court then set the case for trial the next day. She appeared and filed an application for a continuance on account of a witness absent in Kansas City, about 150 miles distant. The trial court overruled the motion, and defendant thereupon immediately applied for a change of venue on account of the prejudice of the judge. The application was granted; the court stating that the other judge (from an adjoining circuit) would be requested to sit the next day for disposition of the case. Next day, the 12th of March, the other judge called the case, and defendant again applied for a continuance on account of the absence in Kansas City of the witness mentioned in her first application. The court overruled the application.
It is insisted by the state that the overruling of the application for a continuance was justified by a failure to disclose due diligence. It is said that no effort was made to subpœna the witness until the second day after the arraignment of defendant and setting the case for trial.
We think, the circumstances considered, that the court machinery was operated too rapidly. So far as the application for a continuance is concerned, defendant must be regarded as innocent, and, under the law, entitled to reasonable time in which to get witnesses in her defense. Certainly she must be diligent, but we do not see where she had opportunity for the diligence which the state's counsel says is absent. She was indicted at 11 o'clock a. m., and arrested and brought into court at 11:30, and her trial set for the next morning. That left no chance for a subpœna reaching Kansas City until that night, and would not reach the sheriff until the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
... ... the ruling of the trial court thereon are reviewable on ... appeal, and our appellate courts will not permit the judgment ... to stand if it is apparent that the trial court exercised its ... discretion unsoundly or oppressively. [State v ... Lewis, 9 Mo.App. 321; State v. Flick (Mo ... App.), 179 S.W. 768; State v. Lambert (Mo ... App.), 262 S.W. 58; State v. Lewis, 74 Mo. 222; ... State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667, 23 S.W. 771; State ... v. Hesterly, 182 Mo. 16, 81 S.W. 624, 103 Am. St. Rep ... 634; State v. Wade, 307 Mo. 291, 270 S.W. 298; ... State v. Richardson et ... ...
-
State v. Jackson.
...if it is apparent that the trial court exercised its discretion unsoundly or oppressively. [State v. Lewis, 9 Mo. App. 321; State v. Flick (Mo. App.), 179 S.W. 768; State v. Lambert (Mo. App.), 262 S.W. 58; State v. Lewis, 74 Mo. 222; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667, 23 S.W. 771; State v. Hest......
-
Doerr v. National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford
... ... condition to be complied with by the insured after occurrence ... of loss, but is one of a condition which was to be in a state ... of fulfillment by [315 Mo. 272] the insured at the time of ... the occurrence of the loss, and was required so to be as a ... measure of ... ...
-
State v. Richardson
... ... to prepare for trial, as well as is his counsel, and to ... refuse same is a denial of just and equal protection of the ... law and against the orderly procedure and spirit of the law ... and is reversible error. State v. Lewis, 9 Mo.App ... 321, approved 74 Mo. 222; State v. Flick, 179 S.W ... 768; State v. Lambert, 262 S.W. 58; 16 C. J. 448, ... 449, par. 815; Notes 57, 58, 59 and 60, 16 C. J. 482, pars ... 874 and 875; Paoni v. United States, 281 F. 801; ... Turinetti v. United States, 2 F.2d 15; State v ... Collins, 104 La. 629, 81 Am. St. 150; People v ... ...