State v. Haney

Citation130 Mo. App. 95,108 S.W. 1080
PartiesSTATE v. HANEY.
Decision Date17 March 1908
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Greene County; A. W. Lincoln, Judge.

T. A. Haney was convicted for violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 2358 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1451], making a person who shall take interest at a rate greater than 2 per cent. per month guilty of a misdemeanor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

M. C. Smith, for appellant. Roscoe C. Patterson, for the State.

BLAND, P. J.

The appeal is from a conviction for violation of section 2358, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1451], which reads as follows: "Every person or persons, company, corporation or firm, and every agent of any person, persons, company, corporation or firm, who shall take or receive, or agree to take or receive, directly or indirectly, by means of commissions or brokerage charges, or otherwise, for the forbearance or use of money or other commodities, any interest at a rate greater than two per cent. per month, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing a higher rate of interest than is now provided by law." The information is as follows (omitting caption and signatures): "Roscoe C. Patterson, prosecuting attorney, within and for the county of Greene, in the state of Missouri, under his oath of office informs the court that T. A. Haney, on the 1st day of November, A. D. 1905, at the said county of Greene, and state of Missouri, did then and there unlawfully take and receive, for the forbearance and use of money, interest at a greater rate than 2 per cent. per month; that is to say, that he, the said T. A. Haney, did then and there unlawfully take and receive of and from one O. A. Springfield the sum of two dollars per month as interest for the forbearance and use of fifteen dollars, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." Defendant moved to quash the information for the following reasons: "(1) Because the information is vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and does not sufficiently notify this defendant of the charge sought to be made against him. (2) That the charge does not state the means whereby the defendant is alleged to have taken or received the alleged usurious money. (3) That defendant is not advised of the offense he is called upon to defend against." Substantially the same grounds were assigned in defendant's motion for arrest of judgment. The information followed the language of the statute. It advised defendant of the nature of the offense charged. The state was not required to set out its evidence in the information, or state the particulars of the offense with more definiteness and certainty than does the statute creating the same, since the statute sets out all the facts constituting the offense. State v. Kentner, 178 Mo., loc. cit. 493, 77 S. W. 522. The state's evidence shows that O. A. Springfield, on November 1, 1905, made and delivered to defendant his promissory note for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 32730.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...v. McChesney, 239 U.S. 568; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 573; Secs. 4421, 5562, R.S. 1929; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16; State v. Haney, 130 Mo. App. 95; Secs. 6732 and 6733, Shannon's Code of Tennessee; Sec. 2969, R.S. 1929; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 709; Sec. 2630, R.S. 1929; Hender......
  • Kansas City v. Markham, 33030.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 12, 1936
    ...222; Home Bond Co. v. McChesney, 239 U.S. 568; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 573; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16; State v. Haney, 130 Mo. App. 95; Secs. 6732, 6733, Shannon's Code of Tenn.; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 709; Tolman v. Union Cas. Co., 90 Mo. App. 279; Henderson v. Tolman, 130......
  • Kansas City v. Markham
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 12, 1936
    ...... Constitution and under the Fourteenth Amendment of the. Federal Constitution. State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 334. Mo. 713, 67 S.W.2d 981; Mo. Const., Secs. 11, 23, Art. II;. U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amend.; State v. Young, 119. Mo. ...332, 226 S.W. 222; Home Bond Co. v. McChesney,. 239 U.S. 568; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 F. 573; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16; State v. Haney,. 130 Mo.App. 95; Secs. 6732, 6733, Shannon's Code of. Tenn.; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 709; Tolman v. Union Cas. Co., 90 Mo.App. 279; Henderson v. ......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...v. McChesney, 239 U.S. 568; Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 F. 573; Secs. 4421, 5562, R. S. 1929; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16; State v. Haney, 130 Mo.App. 95; Secs. 6732 6733, Shannon's Code of Tennessee; Sec. 2969, R. S. 1929; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 709; Sec. 2630, R. S. 1929; Henderson ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT