State v. Meyers

Decision Date31 October 1878
PartiesTHE STATE v. MEYERS, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Newton Circuit Court.--HON. JOSEPH CRAVENS, Judge.

Bray & Cravens for appellant.

J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.



In 1876 the defendant was indicted in the Jasper circuit court under the 35th section of article 2, chapter 42, Wag. Stat., for embezzling certain United States bonds, charged to have been received by him as agent of one Zumbro. On the application of the defendant a change of venue was awarded to Newton county, and at the February term, 1878, of the circuit court of that county, he was tried and convicted. It appears from the record that only eleven jurors were present when the verdict of the jury was received by the court. This is a fatal defect, and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed. State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 470.

It may be that all the jurors were really present, and that the defect in the transcript is the result of a clerical mistake, and we incline to this opinion from the fact that several important omissions have evidently occurred in transcribing the indictment into the record. We are bound, however, to accept the transcript before us as complete and accurate. The loose and reckless manner in which records are frequently prepared for this court in criminal cases, particularly, is inexcusable. Want of attention and accuracy is this matter tends to defeat the enforcement of the criminal laws and to largely increase the criminal costs to be paid by the State, and devolves upon the attorneygeneral the labor which cannot always be reasonably performed, of verifying all the records in criminal cases which are brought to this court. Clerks and prosecuting attorneys should give their attention to this matter.


As the case must be retried, we will dispose of several points made by the defendant. It has been argued here that the indictment is defective in that it does not sufficiently describe the bonds alleged to have been embezzled, and does not set forth the nature and purpose of the agency. The bonds were described as certain United States five-twenty Government bonds, which were valuable securities of the value of $5,000. A more particular description than this is not now required. Wag. Stat., §§ 28, 30, p. 1091.

3. ____: agency.

Nor do we think it was necessary to set out in detail the nature and purpose of the agency. The agency of the defendant, and the receipt of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • State v. Florian
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 10, 1947
    ...State v. Julin, 235 S.W. 818; State v. Larew, 89 S.W. 1031, 191 Mo. 192; State v. McWilliams, 184 S.W. 96, 267 Mo. 437; State v. Meyer, 68 Mo. 266; State v. Moreaux, 254 Mo. 398; State v. Ross, 321 Mo. 510, 279 S.W. 411; State v. Woodward, 130 S.W. (2d) 474. (2) The court did not err in ove......
  • State v. Snyder
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 14, 1904
    ...Pa. 578, 17 A. 194; Wharton's Cr. Pl. and Pr. (9 Ed.), sec. 318, and cases cited in note 2. Accepting, then, the law as ruled in State v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 266, the circuit should have pleaded the exceptions which were necessary to remove the bar of the statute of limitations, and we are broug......
  • State v. Florian
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 10, 1947
    ...... was sustained. The indictments in the instant cases follow. the language of Section 4471, supra. The terms of the statute. are neither technical nor mysterious and do not require. further specifications to apprise an accused of the crime. with which he stands charged. [State v. Meyers, 68. Mo. 266; State v. Dodson, 72 Mo. 283; State v. Moreaux, 254 Mo. 398, 162 S.W. 158; State v. Adams, 318 Mo. 712, 300 S.W. 738; State v. Woodward. (Mo.) 130 S.W.2d 474.]. . .          In each. of the instant cases the first count was for embezzlement by. an agent. In case No. ......
  • State v. Kenyon, 35887.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 21, 1939
    ...the sheriff or that the sheriff brought them into court to return the verdict, which is fatal to the verdict. Sec. 3700, R.S. 1929; State v. Meyer, 68 Mo. 266; State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 472. (4) The record fails to show that the defendant was present in person on the 22nd day of July, the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT