State v. Logan
| Decision Date | 31 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 19324.,19324. |
| Citation | 268 Mo. 169,186 S.W. 979 |
| Parties | STATE v. LOGAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; D. E. Blair, Judge.
Frank B. Logan was charged with crime, and from a judgment quashing the information and discharging defendant, the State appeals. Affirmed.
On the 4th of May, 1915, the prosecuting attorney of Jasper county filed in the circuit court of that county an information against the respondent, which consisted of three counts, similar each to the other, barring the names of the months severally set out therein. Omitting caption and formal parts, the first count of said information is as follows:
"S. W. Bates, prosecuting attorney, within and for the county of Jasper and state of Missouri, upon his official oath informs the court that Frank B. Logan, on the 31st day of January, 1915, at said county of Jasper and state of Missouri, was then and there and had been since January 1, 1915, an officer duly elected and qualified under the Constitution and laws of the state of Missouri, to wit, recorder of deeds of the said county and, by virtue of his office as such recorder of deeds, had the authority to collect and did collect the fees and public moneys which accrued to said office during said month of January, 1915, but that said defendant did, at the end of said month of January, 1915, unlawfully and willfully fail, refuse, and neglect to pay over to the county treasurer of said Jasper county all moneys collected by him as fees, under color and by virtue of said office during said time, as aforesaid, take two receipts therefor and file one with the county auditor of said Jasper county, and did then and there unlawfully and willfully fail, refuse, and neglect to make out an itemized and accurate list of all fees in his said office which had been collected by him, under color and by virtue of said office, and a list of all fees due his office which had not been paid during said time aforesaid, give the name or names of the person or persons paying or owing the same, and that he had been unable, after the exercise of diligence, to collect the part returned unpaid, and verify the same by affidavit, according to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."
To this information and to each count thereof defendant filed his motion to quash, raising inter alia by this motion the constitutionality of an act approved March 25, 1913. Laws of Mo. 1913, p. 709. The pertinent portions of this motion to quash, caption and formal parts omitted, are as follows:
The circuit court of Jasper county, when the motion to quash came on to be heard, sustained the same upon the ground that the act in question is unconstitutional and rendered judgment in due form quashing the information and discharging defendant. From this judgment of the circuit court the state has appealed.
Manifestly the only question for determination by us is the constitutionality vel non of the act in question, and to this our discussion will be limited.
John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and Lee B. Ewing, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. Thomas & Hackney and Gray & Gray, all of Carthage, for respondent.
FARIS, P. J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is conceded, we assume, by both the state and the defendant, for the purposes of this case, that the indictment set out above and which was quashed by the learned court nisi was erroneously quashed if sections 1 and 6 of the act of March 25, 1913 (Laws 1913, pp. 709, 710, and 711), are constitutional.
Suggesting (for that it is to a degree involved in the main point), but without deciding, the question whether section 6 does not either make a new and local crime of divers and sundry acts and omissions already denounced by other general statutes, or make acts, or omissions to act crimes in Jasper county, which elsewhere in the state are not crimes, we come to the blunt question in this case: Is section 1 of the above act unconstitutional because violative of the prohibition against class legislation? This section reads thus:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hedrick
...the office of inspector of oils, bank commissioner, or any of the ether offices mentioned above. A simple reading of State v. Logan, 268 Mo. 169, 186 S. W. 979, will suffice to show that the act under consideration in that case was a special or local act. It could apply to Jasper county anu......
-
State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis
...classes, prohibited by paragraph 33. State ex rel. Taggart v. Perkins, 283 Mo. 161; State ex rel. v. Messerly, 198 Mo. 351; State v. Logan, 268 Mo. 169; State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286 S.W. 705; State ex rel. v. Fry, 300 Mo. 541. (12) The act attempts to take away from the courts superinten......
-
The State ex inf. Barrett v. Hedrick
...Article IV of the Constitution. Par. 32, sec. 53, art. 4, Mo. Constitution; Secs, 3195, 3198, 5995, 9168, 9174, 9175, R. S. 1919; State v. Logan, 268 Mo. 169; State ex rel. v. Revelle, 257 Mo. 540; Moler v. Whisman, 243 Mo. 583; State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275; State ex rel. v. Perki......
-
State ex rel. Fire Dist. of Lemay v. Smith
... ... invalid, because it omits a part of those which in the nature ... of things the reason of the law includes. State ex rel ... Webster Groves Sanitary Sewer Dist. v. Smith, 337 Mo ... 855, 87 S.W.2d 147; Colley v. Jasper County, 337 Mo ... 503, 85 S.W.2d 57; State v. Logan, 268 Mo. 169, 186 ... S.W. 979; State ex inf. Wallach v. Loesch, 169 ... S.W.2d 675. (6) The only basis for the segregation of ... counties of 200,000 to 400,000 population into a separate ... class for the purpose of the Fire District Act is the ... presumed existence in such counties and ... ...