State v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 31 January 1871 |
| Citation | 47 Mo. 274 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. JOHN MURPHY AND WILLIAM C. YORRELL, Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to First District Court.
Lay & Belch, for plaintiffs in error.
H. B. Johnson, for defendant in error, cited 1 Bish. Crim. Pr. 191, 195; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, 274, 803, 810; LeBeau v. The People, 6 Pars. Crim. Law, 387; State v. Francisco, 3 Zabr. 32; Barnes v. State, 20 Conn. 236; 1 Arch. Crim. Pr. & P. C. 315; State v. Gray, 10 Mo. 440.
Defendants were indicted and found guilty of a misdemeanor, before the passage of the act of 1868 for trying such offenses upon information. The charge was that, on the first day of the week, the accused unlawfully kept open a certain tippling shop and grocery, and sold to divers persons, unknown to the grand jury, intoxicating and fermented liquors, to-wit: one glass and gill of beer, one glass and gill of whisky, and one glass and gill of brandy, each for the sum of ten cents, contrary, etc.
The objections to the indictment are: 1st, it is against two persons; 2d, it combines more than one offense in the same count; and 3d, it is not signed by the circuit attorney or certified by the foreman of the grand jury.
1. As to the first objection, we have only to inquire whether more than one person may jointly keep open a grocery and sell liquors on Sunday. If it be possible, then the indictment is so far good. Persons can not be indicted as partners, but suppose two or more, either in their trade or otherwise, should do an act forbidden by law, all consenting, is not each one guilty? For instance, suppose they agree to keep open a tippling shop on the first day of the week, and actually keep it open and sell whisky on that day, does not each one violate the law? Why is not the misdemeanor as much the action of all as though they had jointly committed the crime of burglary or of murder? (State v. Gray, 10 Mo. 440.)
2. In regard to the second objection, the rule is that no more than one offense can be charged in one count, but there are exceptions. When a statute in one clause forbids several things, or creates several offenses in the alternative, which are not repugnant in their nature or penalty, the clause is treated in pleadings as though it created but one offense; and they may all be united conjunctively in one count, and the count is sustained by proof of one of the offenses charged. (State v. Woodward, 25 Verm....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Douglas
...the validity of such an indictment before trial by motion to quash. State v. Brooks, 94 Mo. 121; State v. Harris, 73 Mo. 287; State v. Murphy, 47 Mo. 274. The indorsement the signature is not insufficient because the word "foreman" is omitted or if the signature is omitted altogether, for t......
-
State v. Hartman
...Mo. 280, 6 S.W.2d 849, 850[1, 2]; State v. Craft, 299 Mo. 332, 253 S.W. 224, 227; State v. Williams, Mo., 183 S.W. 308, 309; State v. Murphy, 47 Mo. 274, 275(2); Miller v. Gerk, Mo.App., 27 S.W.2d 444, 445; 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, Secs. 166, 251, pages 1120, 1268; 27 Am.Jur......
-
Brady v. State
...by the use of both means it should be so charged in one count. State v. Montgomery, 109 Mo. 645, 19 S.W. 221; 32 Am. St. Rep. 684; State v. Murphy, 47 Mo. 274; State Fancher, 71 Mo. 460; State v. Pittman, 75 Mo. 56; State v. Bregard, 76 Mo. 322; State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 235; Kelly's Cri......
-
State v. Spano
... ... a bar to a prosecution for the others. This has been the rule ... in criminal pleading in this jurisdiction, beginning with ... State v. Ames, 10 Mo. 743. It finds its first ... definite application in a liquor case in State v ... Murphy, 47 Mo. 274, in which it is ruled that: ... "Where a statute in one clause forbids several things or ... creates several offenses, which are not repugnant in their ... nature or penalty, the clause is treated in pleading as ... though it created but one offense and they may all be united ... ...