State v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 31 March 1871 |
| Citation | 47 Mo. 378 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. WILLIAM A. MARSHALL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
A. J. Baker, for respondent.
G. M. Smith, for appellant.
The defendant was prosecuted by information under section 4, chapter 203, General Statutes (Wagn. Stat. 476), which provides that “every person who shall willfully, corruptly and falsely, before any officer authorized to administer oaths, under oath or affirmation, voluntarily make any false certificate, affidavit or statement of any nature, for any purpose, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,” etc. This is a statutory offense less than perjury, and in St. Louis county to be prosecuted by information in the Court of Criminal Correction.
The information, after the introductory part, reads as follows: “That William A. Marshall, as this affiant believes, at present of St. Louis county aforesaid, in the county of St. Louis, on or about the ______ day of May, A. D. 1870, willfully, corruptly and falsely, before one William Keating, a justice of the peace within and for the county of St. Louis, duly authorized by law to administer oaths, did, for the purpose of obtaining possession of the premises of this affiant, under oath and affirmation, voluntarily make a certain false statement, to-wit: that he, the said William A. Marshall, being the complainant to said justice of the peace, who had full and complete jurisdiction of said cause against Louis Cafferata, this affiant, in an action of unlawful detainer, did swear that the said Louis Cafferata, on the day and year aforesaid (he then and there meaning the 2d day of May, 1870), wrongfully and without force and by disseizin obtained and continues in possession of the same premises (the premises mentioned in said complaint), after demand made in writing for the delivery of the possession thereof; and that the said William A. Marshall then and there well knew the said statement made under oath as aforesaid to be false and corrupt; and in truth and in fact that the said Louis Cafferata did not, on the 2d day of May, 1870, or on any other day, wrongfully and without force, by disseizin, obtain and continue in possession of the said premises after demand made in writing for the delivery of the possession thereof, contrary to the form of the statutes,” etc.
Upon the trial the defendant moved to dismiss the information, but failed to “distinctly specify the grounds of his objection,” as required by section 24 of the act concerning indictments (Wagn. Stat. 1090), and the motion was properly disregarded. A genaral statement in a motion or demurrer that the indictment ““is defective and insufficient,” does not comply with the statute, but the specific defect must be pointed out. Hence we must treat the paper as though no objection were made, and can only inquire whether it will sustain the verdict of guilty.
Defendant's counsel raise a multitude of objections to the information, but they all may be resolved into two: first, that it does not appear that the affidavit was made before any one authorized to administer oaths; and second, that it does not appear to have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...the law. State v. Morney, 196 Mo. 43; State v. Jones, 106 Mo. 312; State v. Scott, 177 Mo. 672; State v. Mahan, 138 Mo. 112; State v. Marshall, 47 Mo. 378; State Francis, 199 Mo. 671; State v. Clapper, 196 Mo. 42; State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 438; State v. Crabtree, 170 Mo. 642; State v. Nesen ......
-
State v. Larkin
...a judgment of conviction upon insufficient evidence should be reversed. State v. Scott, 177 Mo. 673; State v. Maham, 134 Mo. 112; State v. Marshall, 47 Mo. 378. (2) There is evidence to warrant the trial court in giving instruction 6. This is so well established in this State that authoriti......
-
State v. Hartman
...the motion is wholly vague in its terms and fails to point out wherein more than one offense was charged in the indictment. State v. Marshall, 47 Mo. 378, 380.' Defendant's motion for new trial is no more explicit on this issue than his motion to dismiss. See Sec. 547.030. It follows that e......
-
The State v. Joy
...165 Mo. 353; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368; State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 243; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173; State v. Burdorf, 53 Mo. 65; State v. Marshall, 47 Mo. 378; State Daubert, 42 Mo. 238; State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 70; State v. Brosius, 39 Mo. 534; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340. (4) The court......