State v. Hein

Decision Date31 July 1872
Citation50 Mo. 362
PartiesTHE STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. C. HEIN et al., Respondents.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court.

J. W. Moore, Circuit Attorney, for appellant.

The ordering of money to be paid to or warrants issued by County Court justices, in favor of any party, either for real or pretended services or as a gratuity, is simply a ministerial or administrative act and not a judicial act; and a willful and gross abuse of authority by a ministerial officer differs from a corrupt decision of a judicial officer, and the language of an indictment against the former does not require the same technical words. (State ex rel. Conner v. Cooper County, 17 Mo. 507; Phelps County v. Bishop, 46 Mo. 68.) There could be no malicious partiality or misconduct.

As the misdemeanor charged does not apply to a judicial act, the case of The State v. Gardner is not applicable, and it is not necessary or proper to charge the act to have been done corruptly. (2 Mo. 23.)

Draffin & Muir, for respondents, cited The State v. Gardner, 2 Mo. 23.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an indictment against the justices of the Cooper County Court, and charges “that said parties, being then and there justices of the County Court of said county, duly elected, etc., did then and there, under color of their offices as such justices, unlawfully, willfully and by a gross abuse of authority in their official capacity, and under color of their said offices as justices of the said Cooper County Court, draw and order to be drawn on the treasurer of said county a warrant,” etc. The indictment was demurred to as insufficient, and the demurrer was sustained and the State appealed to this court.

The section of law under which this indictment was framed declares that “every person exercising or holding any office or public trust who shall be guilty of willful and malicious oppression, partiality, misconduct or abuse of authority in his official capacity, or under color of his office, shall, on conviction, be punished,” etc. (Wagn. Stat. 487, § 16.)

The act of which the officers must be guilty must be a willful act, but the indictment to be good should contain other averments. It should show such acts as would amount to the imputed crime independent of the word ““willful”; and to make this out, the indictment should charge the act to have been done knowingly and corruptly, and the act should be alleged to be willful. (The State v. Gardner, 2...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Noland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 20, 1892
    ... ... Eighth. It will not do to simply follow the exact words ... of a statute in all cases in drawing indictments. Where a ... statute uses the word "wilful," the indictment must ... charge the acts to have been done "knowingly" and ... "corruptly." State v. Pinger, 57 Mo. 242; State ... v. Hein, 50 Mo. 362; State v. Gardner, 2 Mo ... 23. The word "embezzle" has a well-known legal ... meaning. The legislature used it in that sense. And the words ... "so embezzle," at the end of section 3555, refer to ... the description of the offense in the lines above, and show ... that the ... ...
  • Cook v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1911
    ...misconduct alleged cannot be construed as imputing crime, within the meaning of the law. State v. Boyd, 196 Mo. 52, 94 S. W. 536; State v. Hein, 50 Mo. 362. On the other hand, this allegation does charge the imputation of official misconduct in the publication, a material allegation on the ......
  • Burkarth v. Stephens
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 5, 1906
    ...but the cases so holding disclose that neither bribery nor personal gain was intended to be charged. State v. Gardner, 2 Mo. 23; State v. Hein, 50 Mo. 362; State v. Pinger, 57 Mo. We have not been cited to a case directly in point in its facts, though the views we have expressed are abundan......
  • Cook v. Pulitzer Publishing Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1912
    ...without doing violence thereto. State v. Pinger, 57 Mo. 243; State v. Grassie, 74 Mo.App. 313; Stone v. Graves, 80 Mo. 148; State v. Hein, 50 Mo. 362; State v. Mixan, 41 Mo. 210; United States v. Deaver, 14 F. 595; O'Neill v. Star, 106 N.Y.S. 973; Randall v. News Assn., 101 Mich. 561; McMan......
  • 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