State v. Maupin
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 57 Mo. 205 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. AMOS W. MAUPIN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.
Ewing, Att'y Gen'l, for Appellant.
I. The additional words “and did procure it to be forged” do not occur in the second count. If these words do render the second count bad on demurrer, or on motion to quash, still as the second count is not obnoxious to that objection, the motion should have been overruled. (State vs. Rector, 11 Mo., 28; State vs. Wilson, 15 Mo., 503; State vs. Woodward, 21 Mo., 265.)
II. But the words objected to do not vitiate the first count. They all charge but one offense. (State vs. Carrigan, 24 Conn., 286; State vs. Batson, 31 Mo., 343; State vs. Palmer, 4 Mo., 453; State vs. Ames, 10 Mo., 743; Hobbs vs. State, 9 Mo., 855.)
III. The count will not be held bad by reason of unnecessary or useless words, after rejecting the words objected to as surplusage. The count is good, and in the exact language of the statute. (State vs. Hamilton, 7 Mo., 300; State vs. Edwards, 19 Id., 647.)
Jones and Lay & Belch, for Respondent.
I. This indictment charges that defendant unlawfully and feloniously did make and forge, and also in same count charges that he procured said instrument to be forged.
It is nowhere averred where the fee bill issued, whether in the office of the clerk of the Franklin Circuit Court, or in some county in the State of Ohio; nor is it averred that D. Q. Gale was judge of the Franklin Circuit Court, nor that N. G. Clark was Circuit Attorney, nor that either were officers of any Court.VORIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was indicted in the Franklin Circuit Court for forgery in the 3rd degree.
At the November term of the Franklin Circuit Court, the defendant appeared and filed a motion to quash the indictment for reasons therein stated. This motion was heard by the court and sustained, and final judgment rendered in the cause against the State. The plaintiff excepted to the ruling and judgment of the court, and has appealed to this court.
The only question presented for the consideration of this court is as to the sufficiency of the indictment. The indictment contains two counts, and is in the following form, to-wit:
“The grand jurors of the State of Missouri, now here in court duly impaneled, sworn and charged to inquire within and for the body of Franklin County, on their oaths present, that Amos W. Maupin, late of the county and State aforesaid, on the first day of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-nine, at the county and State aforesaid, did, unlawfully and feloniously, falsely make, forge and cause and procure to be forged and counterfeited, a certain instrument of writing purporting to be the certificate of D. Q. Gale, judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, and of N. G. Clark, Circuit Attorney of the said Ninth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri to a certain fee bill purporting to be the fee bill allowed against the State of Missouri, in the case of the State of Missouri against Greenbury Mitchell, which said certificate is in the words and figures following, to-wit:
We, the undersigned, Judge and Circuit Attorney, certify, that we have strictly examined the foregoing bill of costs during the sitting of the Circuit Court; that the defendant was tried and acquitted; that the offense was one, punishable solely by imprisonment in the State penitentiary; that the services were rendered for which the charges were made, and that the compensation claimed therefor is given by law as therein charged, and that the State is liable to pay the same, being the sum of one hundred and ninety-three dollars and fifty cents.
Given under our hand, this, the 6th day of April, 1869,
N. G. CLARK, Circuit Attorney,
with intent, then and there, unlawfully and feloniously to injure and defraud the State of Missouri, contrary to the form...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Hunt
...153; Stratton v. State, 13 Ark. 688; State v. Welch, 28 Mo. 600; State v. Krueger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Rockforde, 52 Mo. 199; State v. Maupin, 57 Mo. 205; State Raymond, 54 Mo.App. 425; State v. Stegall, 65 Mo.App. 243; State v. Ellis, 71 Mo.App. 269; State v. Fugate, 66 Mo.App. 625; State......
-
Quertermous v. State
...form of the claim is immaterial for the reason that the accused is not charged with altering it in any manner. In the case of State v. Maupin, 57 Mo. 205, charge in the indictment was that the defendant had forged a judge's certificate to a fee bill, and the indictment set forth, in extenso......
-
The State v. McLaughlin
... ... An indictment for keeping a ferry ... without license must specify upon what stream or river the ... ferry was kept. Wheat v. State, 6 Mo. 455; State ... v. Hogan, 31 Mo. 340; State v. Leedy, 95 Mo ... 76; State v. Welch, 28 Mo. 600; State v ... Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Maupin, 57 Mo ... 205; State v. Jones, 68 Mo. 197; St. Louis v ... Fitz, 53 Mo. 582; State v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 256 ... In all prosecutions for felonies, everything constituting the ... offense must be pleaded with certainty and clearness; nothing ... must be left to be implied. State v. Rector, 126 ... ...
-
Quertermous v. State
...of the claim is immaterial, for the reason that the accused is not charged with altering it in any manner. In the case of State v. Maupin, 57 Mo. 205, the charge in the indictment was that the defendant had forged a judge's certificate to a fee bill, and the indictment set forth, in extenso......