State v. Kroeger
| Decision Date | 31 March 1871 |
| Citation | 47 Mo. 530 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. ADOLPH E. KROEGER, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Chas. P. Johnson, Circuit Attorney, and Cline, Jamison & Day, for appellant.
Lackland, Martin & Lackland, and Allen, for respondent.
The indictment in this case is insufficient at common law because it does not sufficiently describe the check or money alleged to have been stolen.
The court sustained a demurrer to the indictment in this case, and therefore the only question is whether the indictment contained sufficient allegations to put the accused upon trial. There is but one count, and it is therein alleged that the defendant, on the 10th day of December, 1869, “one check for five thousand dollars on the Traders' Bank, of the value of five thousand dollars; five thousand dollars in money, of the value of five thousand dollars, all of the property of, etc., * * * feloniously did then and there steal, take and carry away,” etc. At common law an indictment for larceny should describe the money as so many pieces of the current gold or silver coin of the country, of a particular denomination, or other species of money should be specified according to the facts. But our statute regulating criminal practice has done away with much of the nicety and particularity required by the common-law procedure, though I apprehend that it is still necessary to set forth the substantial facts, so that the accused shall be fairly apprised of what he is to meet and defend against.
The act in reference to practice in criminal cases provides that “in every indictment for forging, uttering, stealing, embezzling, destroying or concealing, or for obtaining by color of any false token, writing, or false pretenses, any instrument or property, it shall be sufficient to describe such instrument or property by any name or designation by which the same may be usually known, or by the purport thereof, without setting out any copy or facsimile thereof, or otherwise describing the same or the value thereof.” (Wagn. Stat. 1091, § 28.) Whilst this section renders it unnecessary to set out the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noland
... ... for section 4111 to apply; for, with the exception named in ... this section, all money must be specifically described under ... the common law and the repeated decisions of this and other ... states. Reside v. State, 10 Tex.App. 675; People ... v. Cohn, 8 Cal. 42; State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo ... 530; State v. Moore, 66 Mo. 372 (overruling State v ... Kroeger, supra, in part, but not in the point here raised); 2 ... Bishop on Criminal Procedure, sec. 703; State v ... Denton, 22 A. 305; Stewart v. State, 62 Md ... 413; Kearney v. State, 48 Md. 23; Ridgeway v ... ...
-
State v. Harrison
...297 Mo. 164, 249 S.W. 46; State v. Mispagel, 207 Mo. 557, 106 S.W. 513; State v. Fay, 65 Mo. 490; State v. Wright, 95 S.W.2d 1158; State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Jeffords, 64 S.W.2d 241; State Murphy, 141 Mo. 267. (3) The verdict and judgment in this case are erroneous on the face o......
-
The State v. Foley
...State v. Schild, 159 Mo. 130; State v. Crosswhite, 130 Mo. 358; State v. Dodson, 72 Mo. 283; State v. Bacon, 170 Mo. 161; State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530. (6) It was erroneous in the trial to admit evidence of witnesses, testifying: a. That they had seen defendant at times without a horse and ......
-
State v. Harrison
...Mo. 164, 249 S.W. 46; State v. Mispagel, 207 Mo. 557, 106 S.W. 513; State v. Fay, 65 Mo. 490; State v. Wright, 95 S.W. (2d) 1158; State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Jeffords, 64 S.W. (2d) 241; State v. Murphy, 141 Mo. 267. (3) The verdict and judgment in this case are erroneous on the f......