State v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Citation | 65 Mo. 667 |
| Parties | THE STATE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. HAMILTON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Stoddard Circuit Court.--HON. R. P. OWEN, Judge.
J. L. Smith, Attorney General, for the State, cited State v. Terry, 30 Mo. 369.
An indictment was found againt defendant, by the grand jury of Stoddard county, for perjury at the June term, 1874, of the circuit court of said county. Defendant filed his demurrer to the indictment, which was sustained by the court and judgment entered for defendant, to reverse which, plaintiff brings the cause here by writ of error.
The indictment is framed on the 1st section, Wag. Stat., p. 476, which is as follows: “Every person who shall willfully and corruptly swear, testify or affirm falsely to any material matter, upon any oath, affirmation or declaration legally administered, in any cause, matter or proceeding before any court, tribunal or public body, or officer, and whoever shall falsely, by swearing or affirming, take any oath prescribed by the constitution of this State, or any law or ordinance thereof, when such oath shall be legally administered, shall be deemed guilty of perjury.” The indictment is of such length as to prohibit its entire insertion herein, and we shall only notice so much of it as we think is materially defective. It alleges that “the grand jurors, &c., on their oaths present, that heretofore, to-wit: at the December term, 1873, of the circuit court within and for the county of Stoddard, on the 6th day of December, 1873, before a public body and tribunal, to-wit: before William A. Maples” (and seventeen other persons named in the indictment,) “good and lawful men of said county of Stoddard, then and there duly empanneled, sworn and charged to inquire and true presentments make, &c., of all felonies and misdemeanors in said county of Stoddard committed, it then and there became and was a material question whether within one year next preceding said 6th day of December, 1874, one Samuel J. Bartlett, &c., at the town of Dexter, in said county of Stoddard, played at a game of chance, to-wit: a game of cards for money and property; and that on said 6th day of December, 1873, during the session of said circuit court, &c., before the said good and lawful men, who were then and there so sworn and charged as aforesaid, one James L. Hamilton appeared as a witness, and was then and there sworn, &c.”
The indictment is defective in not alleging that the public body and tribunal was a grand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burgdoerfer
... ... the state in cases where there had not been a trial and ... acquittal, and, therefore, in a case where a judgment had ... gone against the state on motion to quash. But, in State ... v. Copeland, 65 Mo. 497, followed by State v ... Cutter, 65 Mo. 503; State v. Hamilton, 65 Mo ... 667, and State v. Cox, 67 Mo. 46, it was held that ... the question involved in State v. Peck and State v. Newkirk ... was "but lightly considered," and that the statute ... did not receive a proper construction. The earlier cases ... were, therefore, expressly and in terms ... ...
-
State v. Higgins
...day of October, 1891, he did not know it." The instructions must traverse and conform to the issues presented by the indictment. State v. Hamilton, 65 Mo. 667; v. Frisby, 90 Mo. 530. (5) This instruction is also bad for the reason that it failed to tell the jury that before they could find ......
-
Gatewood v. House
... ... of deeds for Audrain county; and a subsequent purchaser could not be required to go elsewhere than to the recorder's office to ascertain the state of the title to any tract of land; 19 Iowa 557. It is the duty of a purchaser of real estate not only to have his deed recorded, but to procure such ... ...
-
State v. Blize
...of Ruah L. Smith at and prior to May 10, 1886, and the averment is that the testimony was as to her character before May, 1886. State v. Hamilton, 65 Mo. 667. Dates must be correctly stated. It is bad for the reason it does not pretend to set out the language used by defendant in his testim......