State v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 31 January 1861 |
| Citation | 31 Mo. 342 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. HOGAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where the words endorsed on an indictment “a true bill:____, foreman of the jury” are printed, and the name of the foreman was appended to the words descriptive of his office, instead of preceding them, the indictment should not be quashed.
2. Nor is it sufficient cause for quashing an indictment that the record does not show that the bill was filed, nor on what day it was filed.
Appeal from Taney Circuit Court.
Knott, (attorney general,) for the State.
There was a motion to quash this indictment because in the endorsement on it the words “a true bill:____, foreman of the jury,” were printed, and the name of the foreman of the grand jury, instead of preceding the words descriptive of his office, was appended to them. There was also an objection that the record did not show that the bill was filed, or on what day it was filed. The motion to quash was overruled and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Judge Ewing concurs. Judge Scott absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...was returned in open court, and properly filed, and this is sufficient. Baker v. Henry, 63 Mo. 519; State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 25; State v. Hogan, 31 Mo. 342; State Vincent, 91 Mo. 665; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 435; State v. Plummer, 55 Mo.App. 291. This motion, however, should not be reviewed by......
-
State v. Hockaday
...Mo. 432); and that it is not a sufficient cause for quashing an indictment that the record does not show that the bill was filed. State v. Hogan, 31 Mo. 342. A paper is said to be filed when it is delivered to the proper officer, and by him received to be kept on file. Bouv. Law Dict.; 7 Am......
- State v. Freeze
- State v. Elliott