State v. Hardwick

• Decision Date: 31 October 1830
• Citation: State v. Hardwick, 2 Mo. 226 (Mo. 1830)
• Parties: THE STATE v. HARDWICK.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

2 Mo. 226

THE STATE

v.HARDWICK.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1830.

WASH J.

This was an indictment in the Ray Circuit Court, for selling goods, wares and merchandise without license, to which the defendant plead not guilty, and on which, at the November term of said court, 1829, he was convicted. A motion in arrest of judgment was made and overruled, and judgment given for the State; to reverse which the present writ of error is prosecuted.

The indictment charges the offense in the following words: “Ray county to-wit: The Grand Jurors of the State of Missouri, for the body of the county of Ray, upon their oath present, that Thomas Hardwick, late of said county, on the first day of November, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, at the county of Ray aforesaid, with force and arms did deal in the selling of goods, wares and merchandise not the growth, produce or manufacture of this State, at a place occupied for that purpose within said county, without having first applied for and obtained a license for that purpose, agreeably to the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of the said State, entitled “An act imposing a tax on licenses to venders of merchandise and pedlars, approved February 19th, 1825;” the said Thomas Hardwick not regarding his duty in that particular, but intending to evade the said statute, and unlawfully to defraud the revenue of the said State, did then and there sell to one John Riffle, Sen'r, of the county aforesaid, five yards of cassinett of the value of one dollar per yard; and did then and there sell to one John Riffle, Jun'r, five yards of cassinett of the value of one dollar per yard; and to John Stanley one pound of coffee; and also then and there did sell to divers other citizens of said State, divers other quantities of cassinett, coffee and muslin, and other goods to persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, without having obtained a licease as aforesaid,” concluding against the statute. The reasons urged in arrest of judgment in the court below, and relied on in this court, are: First. That it is not shown in the indictment that the defendant had not a license continuing in force. Second. That in the allegation that the goods sold, &c., the word and is put in place of or in the statute. Third. That the first averment after the figures 1825, is not shown to be upon the oath of the grand jury. Fourth. There is no venue laid to the averment of no license. Fifth. There is no time laid to the place occupied for selling, &c. Sixth. There is no venue after the words “force and arms.”...