State v. McCracken
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | RYLAND |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 411 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Appellant, v. MCCRACKEN, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1855 |
20 Mo. 411
THE STATE, Appellant,
v.
MCCRACKEN, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
January Term, 1855.
1. “The county aforesaid” in an indictment not a sufficient venue, where two counties have been previously named.
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.
Indictment of a road overseer for neglect of duty. The indictment was quashed below, and the State appealed. Enough of the indictment is contained in the opinion of the court to show the point decided.
Gardenhire, (att'y gen'l,) for the State, cited 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 170; R. C. 1845, p. 869, sec. 17.
F. P. Wright, for respondent, cited 2 Mo. 228; 3 Mo. 45; 1 Chitty's Crim. Law. 179.
RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
[20 Mo. 412]
The court did not err in quashing this indictment. The venue is no where laid with certainty, as to the county and road district over which the defendant was overseer. The indictment charges “that there is a public road and highway leading from Hickory county line, on the state road leading from Warsaw to Bolivar, and terminating at Dry Pome de Terre, in the county of Polk aforesaid; and that Ephraim McCracken, of said county, on the day and year aforesaid, was, and ever since hath been, and yet is overseer of said road district number one, in the county aforesaid, duly appointed,” etc; and whenever afterwards the venue is any where laid in said indictment, it is said to be at the county aforesaid.
1. Although this court discourages trivial technical objections and exceptions to indictments for misdemeanors, and has generally discountenanced such; yet when no time is laid to any act material to constitute the offence, and no venue properly and certainly laid, and such exceptions are taken in the court below, and by that court sustained, it will be useless to come here to have the judgment of such lower court reconsidered.
The case of The State v. Hardwick, (2 Mo. 228,) is direct authority in support of the judgment of the Circuit Court in this case.
Here, the county of Hickory is named, and also the county of Polk--two counties mentioned in the body of the indictment, and the offense is stated to have been committed “at the county...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cegars v. State, 22
...for uncertainty. Std. Ency. of Procedure, Vol. 12, p. 428; 29 Fla. 455; 10 Sou. 891; 8 N.J.L. 307; 18 Tex. 391; 39 Me. 291; 26 Neb. 263; 20 Mo. 411; C. & M. Dig. Secs. 3212-13; 14 R. C. L. Sec. 27, p.181. The jury were not sworn on their voir dire. C. & M. Dig. Sec. 3144. The court ......
-
State v. Findley
...and March. Under the rulings of this court in the cases of Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 9; State v. Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425; State v. Myers, 20 Mo. 411; State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236, the point raised by the demurrer is not well taken, and the action of the court in sustaining it was erroneous. A......
-
Connor v. State
...held bad, as not showing with sufficient certainty that the offense was committed in Campbell county. It is observed in State v. McCracken, 20 Mo. 411, where two different counties were named, and the indictment was quashed, that when two different times and two different places are mention......
-
Com. v. Wheeler
...Case, 1 Cro.Eliz. 184; 1 Wm.Saund. 308, note; Reg. v. Rhodes, 2 Ld.Raym. 886; King v. Moor Critchell, 2 East, 66; State v. McCracken, 20 Mo. 411; Cain v. State, 18 Tex. 391; Bell v. Com., 8 Grat. 201. It is contended, however, that a different rule applies in this commonwealth, on the autho......
-
Cegars v. State, 22
...for uncertainty. Std. Ency. of Procedure, Vol. 12, p. 428; 29 Fla. 455; 10 Sou. 891; 8 N.J.L. 307; 18 Tex. 391; 39 Me. 291; 26 Neb. 263; 20 Mo. 411; C. & M. Dig. Secs. 3212-13; 14 R. C. L. Sec. 27, p.181. The jury were not sworn on their voir dire. C. & M. Dig. Sec. 3144. The court ......
-
State v. Findley
...and March. Under the rulings of this court in the cases of Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 9; State v. Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425; State v. Myers, 20 Mo. 411; State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236, the point raised by the demurrer is not well taken, and the action of the court in sustaining it was erroneous. A......
-
Connor v. State
...held bad, as not showing with sufficient certainty that the offense was committed in Campbell county. It is observed in State v. McCracken, 20 Mo. 411, where two different counties were named, and the indictment was quashed, that when two different times and two different places are mention......
-
Com. v. Wheeler
...Case, 1 Cro.Eliz. 184; 1 Wm.Saund. 308, note; Reg. v. Rhodes, 2 Ld.Raym. 886; King v. Moor Critchell, 2 East, 66; State v. McCracken, 20 Mo. 411; Cain v. State, 18 Tex. 391; Bell v. Com., 8 Grat. 201. It is contended, however, that a different rule applies in this commonwealth, on the autho......