State v. Horned

Decision Date17 November 1903
PartiesTHE STATE v. HORNED, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Francois Circuit Court. -- Hon. R. A. Anthony Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Bruce Barnett for the State.

"As nothing is left to intendment, the defendant is entitled to know whether the State intends to show ownership in a firm composed of individuals or in a corporation." State v. Jones, 168 Mo. 402. As the information in this case fails to allege whether the depot charged to have been burglarized was the property of a corporation or of a co-partnership, it would seem that the judgment will have to be reversed and the cause remanded.

FOX, J Burgess, J., absent.

OPINION

FOX J.

Appellant was convicted in the circuit court of St. Francois county of burglary and larceny and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years; from this judgment, he appeals.

Appellant failed to file any bill of exceptions in this cause; hence, if there were any errors in the trial, they have not been preserved in proper form, and there is nothing for review in this cause before this court except the record proper.

Appellant has not favored this court with a brief or even an assignment of errors, suggesting, in any particular, any fatal defect in the record before us, but notwithstanding this failure upon the part of the defendant, the law in criminal procedure imposes the duty upon this court, of making an examination of the record and determining the correctness or incorrectness of the same. In obedience to this duty, we have given the appellant the benefit of a careful investigation of the questions which arise, upon the record proper, which is now before us.

The information in this cause is the basis of the entire proceeding, hence, the sufficiency of the allegations charging the offense is the vital question before us.

The information upon which this conviction is predicated is as follows, omitting the caption and verification and indorsements:

"Now comes W. L. Hensley, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of St. Francois and State of Missouri, on behalf of the State of Missouri, and upon his oath of office, and upon his knowledge, information and belief, informs the court that John Horned, on the -- -- day of July, 1902, at and in the county of St. Francois and State of Missouri, did then and there feloniously and burglariously break into and enter a certain building, to-wit, the depot of the Mississippi River and Bonne Terre Railway in the town of Flat River, county and State aforesaid, in which said depot, certain goods, wares and merchandise and other valuable things were kept and deposited, with the intent feloniously, certain of the goods, wares and merchandise and valuable things in the said depot then and there so kept and deposited, feloniously and burglariously to steal, take and carry away, one suit of clothes of the value of thirty dollars, the personal property and chattels of one William Trauernicht and a certain lot of silverware of the value of twenty-five dollars the personal property and chattels of one J. J. McDaniels then and there in said depot being found, did then and there feloniously and burglariously steal, take and carry away, against the peace and dignity of the State."

To constitute a valid charge for the offense of burglary, it is undisputed that the ownership of the building charged to have been burglarized must be alleged and, upon the trial of such charge, proved. [2 East P.C. 650.]

It will be observed "the information charges that the defendant did 'feloniously and burglariously break into and enter a certain building, to-wit, the depot of the Mississippi River and Bonne Terre Railway.' The information may be construed as meaning that the 'Mississippi River and Bonne Terre Railway' is the name of the owner of the depot, but it is not alleged that it was a corporation. If the 'Mississippi River and Bonne Terre Railway' was intended as the name of a copartnership, the names of the individuals composing it are not alleged."

The plain question confronts us, does the allegation, "the depot of the Mississippi River and Bonne Terre Railway," meet the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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