State v. Goss
| Citation | 74 Mo. 592 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. GOSS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.--HON. JOS. CRAVENS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
John G. Wear for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant was indicted in the Lawrence county circuit court for “cruelly and maliciously maiming, beating and torturing a certain cow, the property of defendant.” He was tried, convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $20. From this judgment he appeals, and assigns for error the action of the court in overruling his motion to quash the indictment, and also the motion in arrest of judgment.
The court was asked to quash the indictment, because no prosecutor's name was indorsed on the indictment. Section 22, page 1084, Wagner's Statutes, only requires the name of a prosecutor to be indorsed on an indictment when the indictment charges a trespass against the person or property of another, and as this indictment charges that the maiming, beating and torturing was of defendant's own cow, the statute in question has no application, and the motion to quash was properly overruled.
The court was also asked to arrest the judgment on the alleged ground that the indictment was too vague and defective to support the judgment, that it did not aver the mode or manner of the beating, wounding and torturing of the animal. We are of the opinion that these objections are not well taken. The indictment was framed on section 46, Wagner's Statutes, 506, and charges the offense in the language of the statute creating it, and is, therefore, sufficient. State v. Stubblefield, 32 Mo. 563; State v. Addcock, 65 Mo. 590. Nor was it necessary to aver in the indictment the means used in beating, maiming and torturing the cow. A similar question was involved in the case of the State v. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452, and it was so ruled.
Judgment affirmed, in which all concur, except RAY, J., absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Zweigart
....... Conceding, then, the rule contended for and firmly established in this state (Fifer v. McCarty, 243 Mo. 42, 147 S. W. 833; Waddle v. Frazier, 245 Mo. 391, 151 S. W. 87; Gibson v. Shull, 251 Mo. 480, 158 S. W. 322; Hunter v. ......
-
State v. Currier
...R. S. 1899, and is sufficient, valid and properly charges the offense. State v. Grimes, 101 Mo. 188; State v. Woodward, 95 Mo. 129; State v. Goss, 74 Mo. 592. The motion quash was properly overruled. It is a general rule of criminal pleading that the prosecutor is at liberty to charge in a ......
-
State v. Prater
...of the statute and is sufficient. [State v. Pruett, 61 Mo.App. 156; State v. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452; State v. Graham, 46 Mo. 490; State v. Goss, 74 Mo. 592.] The information this case is similar to those approved in the cases cited, and particularly the one in State v. Pruett, wherein, it ma......
-
State v. Prater
...of the statute, and is sufficient. State v. Pruett, 61 Mo. App. 156; State v. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 453; State v. Graham, 46 Mo. 490; State v. Goss, 74 Mo. 592. The information in this case is similar to those approved in the cases cited, and particularly the one in State v. Pruett, wherein, it......