State v. Fogerson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1860
• Citation: 29 Mo. 416
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. FOGERSON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 Mo. 416

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.FOGERSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1860.

1. An indictment, founded on the fifteenth section of the seventh article of the act concerning crimes and punishments (R. C. 1855, p. 620), which charges that the defendant did wilfully and unlawfully disturb the peace of a neighborhood “by then and there cursing and swearing, and by loud and abusive and indecent language,” is sufficient.

2. To sustain the charge made in an indictment founded on that section it is not necessary to show that every person in the neighborhood was disturbed; nor would the testimony of individuals be admissible in behalf of defendant to show that they were in the neighborhood and they were not disturbed.

Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.

The facts are set forth sufficiently in the opinion of the court.

______, for appellant.

Knott, (attorney general,) for the State.

I. The indictment is sufficient. The evidence offered by the defendant was clearly irrelevant. The instructions as a whole present the law of the case fairly before the jury.

EWING, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted, under the fifteenth section of the seventh article of the act concerning crimes and punishments, for disturbing the peace of a neighborhood. The offence under the statute consists in wilfully disturbing the peace of any neighborhood, or of any family, by loud and unusual noise, loud and offensive or indecent conversation, or by threatening, quarreling, challenging, or fighting, &c. The indictment charges that the defendant on, &c., at, &c., did then and there wilfully and unlawfully disturb the peace of a neighborhood, to-wit, the neighborhood and town of Lebanon, in said county, by then and there cursing and swearing, and by loud and abusive and indecent language, &c.

As a general rule it is sufficient to describe an offence created by statute in the words of the statute, and indeed it is necessary to do so where the offence may not be as clearly and intelligibly set forth in other language. But when the words used are in effect equivalent to those in the statute, this verbal strictness is relaxed, and the indictment will be held good. (1 Chitty C. L. 283.) It is sufficient if the indictment contain enough to inform the defendant and the court of the precise nature of the charge.

In the case at bar the defendant is charged with disturbing the peace of the neighborhood by loud and abusive and indecent language. The offence may be committed by loud and offensive conversation, or loud and indecent conversation. The terms are used disjunctively in the statute, and the offence is well described if the disturbance is alleged to...