State v. Keating

• Decision Date: 19 March 1907
• Parties: STATE v. KEATING.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

100 S.W. 648

202 Mo. 197

STATE v. KEATING.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 19, 1907.

1. ELECTIONS — FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION — SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION.

An information, under Rev. St. 1899, art. 6, c. 15 [Ann. St. 1906, pp. 1360-1376], as amended by Laws 1903, p. 155, authorizing the conviction of any person fraudulently registering or attempting or offering to register in any "election precinct," not having a "lawful" right to do so, alleging that defendant "fraudulently registered" in a precinct, and failing to charge that he had no "lawful" right to do so, and to specify the acts done by defendant in and about his registration making it fraudulent, was insufficient.

2. SAME — RESIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In a trial for fraudulent registration in an election precinct, testimony that witness knew defendant lived in a precinct other than where he registered, that he had seen defendant going to and from his place of residence during the day and night, and knew the rest of the family, in the absence of proof to the contrary, was sufficient to show that defendant did not reside in the precinct where he registered.

3. STATUTES — TITLE — CLEAR EXPRESSION OF SUBJECT.

Act March 24, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 155), an act to amend article 6 of chapter 15, Rev. St. 1899, by adding 16 new sections, and the sections are designated, and to define offenses in connection with elections, and prescribing penalties therefor, is not unconstitutional as not clearly expressing the subject in its title.

4. SAME — CONSTITUTIONALITY — CLASS LEGISLATION.

Act March 24, 1903, governing registration for elections in cities of 300,000 population or more, is not violative of Const. art. 4, §§ 53, 54 [Ann. St. 1906, pp. 197-204], prohibiting local or special legislation.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James E. Withrow, Judge.

Edward J. Keating was convicted of fraudulent registration in an election precinct, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This cause is now pending before this court upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis convicting him of fraudulently registering in an election precinct in which he had no lawful right to register. On the 19th day of September, 1905, the circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis filed an information in two counts, duly verified, charging the defendant with a violation of the provisions of an act of the General Assembly, approved March 24, 1903, defining offenses in connection with elections, and prescribing the penalties therefor. The defendant being convicted upon the second count, we have in this proceeding only to deal with the charge preferred in that count. The sufficiency of the count upon which the defendant was convicted is challenged. Therefore it is well to here reproduce it. Omitting formal parts, it was as follows: "And said Arthur N. Sager, circuit attorney, within and for the city of St. Louis (said city comprising the Eighth judicial circuit of the state of Missouri), as aforesaid, now here in court, on behalf of the state of Missouri, further information makes that in the city of St. Louis, on the nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second days of September, one thousand nine hundred and four, a general registration of voters, under the laws of the state of Missouri, was held in the said city of St. Louis, and in every ward and precinct of said city of St. Louis (said city of St. Louis being then and there a city having more than three hundred thousand inhabitants), and in the Ninth precinct of the Second ward of said city of St. Louis, and by and before the duly appointed and acting judges, clerks and officers of registration of said precinct and ward; and that Edward J. Keating on said nineteenth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and four, at the said city of St. Louis, in the said Ninth precinct of the Second ward, before the said duly appointed, qualified, and acting judges and clerks of registration of said precinct, unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, and fraudulently did register as a qualified voter of said precinct, and then and there give to the said judges and clerks of election of said precinct, who were then and there acting as officers of registration, his name as Edward J. Keating and his residence as No. 3127 North Twelfth street in said precinct, and then and there requested said officers of registration to then and there write the name of him, the said Edward J. Keating, upon the registers, poll books, and books of registration of said precinct, and to enter the residence of him, the said Edward J. Keating, upon said books, as No. 3127 North Twelfth street in said precinct, as a qualified voter of said precinct, having the right to register and vote in said precinct, and the said judges and clerks of registration of said precinct aforesaid then and there did enter upon the registers, poll books, and books of registration of said precinct the name of the said Edward J. Keating as residing at said No. 3127 North Twelfth street, and as being a qualified voter having the right to register and vote in said precinct, and he, the said Edward J. Keating, then and there feloniously, willfully, knowingly, unlawfully, and fraudulently did write his name upon the said registers, poll books, and books of registration of said precinct as a qualified voter having the right to register and vote in said precinct by then and there writing the signature and name E. J. Keating upon said books in the margin provided for the signatures of qualified voters when registering; whereas, in truth and in fact the said Edward J. Keating then and there did not reside at No. 3127 North Twelfth street, nor in said precinct, and had no right to register in said precinct as he, the said Edward J. Keating, then and there well knew, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

To this information there was a plea of not guilty, and the trial proceeded. There were three witnesses introduced on the part of the state. The secretary of the board of election commissioners, who was the custodian of the registry books and records, identified certain registry books, and they were introduced in evidence, which tended to show that the defendant was registered in the Ninth precinct of the Second ward of the said city of St. Louis. There were two other witnesses who testified as to the acts and conduct of the defendant, as well as the registering officers at the time of such registration. The testimony tending to show that defendant did not live in the Ninth precinct of the Second ward, and at the place as is charged in the indictment he designated to the registering officers, consisted mainly of the testimony of Charles W. Woodcock, who testified for the state, who substantially stated that he knew the defendant lived somewhere in the 800 block in the Fourth precinct of the Second ward. Upon cross-examination he stated: "Q. You have said that you knew that the defendant lived somewhere in the 800 block. Your knowledge in that connection is in the nature of hearsay, is it not? A. No, I have known him to live there. I have seen him coming in and out of there during the day and night. I knew the rest of the family. Q. That is what you base it on that his mother and sister and some of his relatives lived in that immediate neighborhood. Now, as to exactly where he lived, you can't say he lived there, or did not live somewhere else? A. I have not seen where he sleeps."

This is sufficient to indicate the nature and character of the testimony upon which this cause was submitted to the jury. At the close of the testimony, the court instructed the jury, and, the cause being submitted to them, they returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as he was charged in the second count of the information, and assessed his...