State v. Larger
| Decision Date | 31 March 1870 |
| Citation | 45 Mo. 510 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. GARRETT LARGER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
S. N. Taylor, for appellant, cited 1 Chit. Crim. L. 174, 231; Barb. Crim. L. 319; 2 Strange, 900; State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236; Neagles v. State, 10 Mo. 498; State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 475.
H. B. Johnson, Attorney-General, and J. P. Colcord, for respondent, cited State v. Newberry, 43 Mo. 429.
The defendant seeks to arrest the judgment herein because of the supposed insufficiency of the complaint, which undertakes to set out the facts constituting a misdemeanor. The statute under which it is framed (Acts 1867, p. 112, § 1) enacts that a husband who shall, without good cause, abandon his wife, and who shall also fail to maintain and provide for her, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. The complaint charges that the defendant abandoned his wife and failed to maintain or provide for her, using “or” instead of “and” as a connection between the words “maintain” and “provide.” This variation from the statute is thought to be fatal to the complaint. I am of a different opinion. The complaint charges the abandonment, and that the defendant neglected and refused either to maintain or provide for his deserted wife. If he did neither, he neglected both. Besides, the words “maintain and provide,” as used in the statute, mean simply a provision of a maintenance, the neglect of which, after abandonment, completes the offense defined by the statute. We think this neglect is sufficiently charged in the complaint.
But it is further objected that the judgment was erroneous because the trial was by the court, the record failing to show that a jury was waived. In misdemeanor cases, the statute does not require any express waiver of a jury in order to authorize a trial by the court. The provision is (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 848, § 2) that the “defendant and prosecuting attorney, with the consent of the court, may submit the trial of misdemeanors to the court.” It is not required that such submission shall be entered on the minutes, or that it shall in any manner become a matter of record. It is not to be presumed, therefore, from the silence of the record, that the court proceeded irregularly and without authority. If the defendant was not willing to be tried by the court, he should have objected at the time. Having taken his chances with the court, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alvarez v. Lopez
...state-court decisions support the tribe's position. See State v. McClinton , 418 S.W.2d 55, 60–61 (Mo. 1967) (discussing State v. Larger , 45 Mo. 510, 511 (1870) ); State v. Mangelsen , 207 Neb. 213, 297 N.W.2d 765, 767–68 ...
-
State v. Bockstruck
... ... 2 R. S. 1855, p. 1189, ... sec. 2. This statute has been on the statute books ever ... since, and thousands of convictions have been had under it ... Gen. Stats. 1865, p. 848, sec. 2; R. S. 1879, sec. 1890. See, ... also, State v. Moody , 24 Mo. 560; State v ... Larger , 45 Mo. 510 ... This ... being the case, it can not be said that defendant has been ... denied "the right of trial by jury as heretofore ... enjoyed," since whatever was the status of that ... right at the time of the adoption of the constitution of ... 1875, was the ... ...
-
State v. Cottrill
...v. State, 4 Ohio St. 57; Dillingham v. State, 5 Ohio St. 280; Murphy v. Com., 1 Metc. (Ky.) 365; Tyra v. Com., 2 Metc. (Ky.) 1; State v. Larger, 45 Mo. 510; State v. Van Matre, 49 Mo. 268; State v. Cox, 8 Ark. 436; Cross v. State, 78 Ala. 430. Com. v. Dailey, 12 Cush. 80, was an indictment ......
-
State v. Bragg
...or characterize the same act or thing, nor to words which are merely different names for the same thing. Thus it was held in State v. Larger, 45 Mo. 510, not to be bad pleading to charge that defendant abandoned his wife and failed to "maintain or provide" for her, since the words "maintain......