State v. Moore

• Citation: 66 Mo. 372
• Parties: THE STATE v. MOORE, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

66 Mo. 372

THE STATE

v.MOORE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.--HON. SAMUEL A. RICHARDSON, Judge.

Shanklin, Low and McDougal for appellant.

Rush, Jr., with J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.

HENRY, J.

At the February term 1876, of the circuit court of Livingston county, defendant was indicted for grand larceny, charged with having, on or about the 20th day of December, 1875, stolen a piece of money made and issued under the laws of the United States, of the value of twenty dollars, and two pieces of money made and issued under the laws of the United States, each of the value of five dollars, and the property of one William Jones. At the same term there was a trial of the cause on defendant's plea of not guilty, and he was acquitted by the jury. Afterwards, at the same term of said court, he was again indicted for grand lerceny, charged with having, on or about the 20th day of December, 1875, stolen one piece of money, to-wit: a national bank note, made and issued by the First National Bank of Greencastle, in the State of Pennsylvania, of the denomination of twenty dollars, made and issued under and by virtue of the laws of the United States, and the property of one William Jones. To this defendant pleaded autrefois acquit, alleging his former trial and acquittal, and that the larceny of which he was so tried and acquitted, was the same for which he was again indicted, and that the William Jones mentioned as the owner of the property stolen in the first indictment was the same William Jones mentioned as owner of the property in the last indictment, &c. To this plea a replication was filed and on a trial of the issues on the plea of autrefois acquit defendant introduced, as a witness, Hamlet Wynn, who testified that he was the prosecuting witness in the case, and was a witness at the former trial of the State v. Charles P. Moore, that he then testified that he caught defendant at the Grand river bridge, asked him for the money and defendant gave it to him, that he did not, on the former trial, describe the bill, and that he told no more for the reason that defendant's counsel stopped him and would not let him tell about anything but coin. He was the only witness introduced. He “started to describe the bill at the former trial but defendant's counsel stopped him as soon as he said ‘one of the bills was a twenty dollar greenback,” and the court then ruled that no testimony, except about coin, was admissible under the indictment. He then testified that there was but one taking that he knew anything about, and that it was the same he testified to on the former trial and now. The Prosecuting Attorney, to obviate the necessity for further proof, admitted that there had been but one larceny, and that of money belonging to William Jones. Defendant then introduced in evidence the first indictment and the verdict and judgment thereon.

The court of its own motion instructed the jury, that “under the...