State v. Raymond
| Decision Date | 08 May 1900 |
| Citation | 56 S.W. 894,156 Mo. 117 |
| Parties | STATE v. RAYMOND. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Bates county; W. W. Graves, Judge.
Hazel Raymond was convicted of keeping a bawdy house, and appealed to the court of appeals. Cause transferred to supreme court as involving construction of the constitution. Remanded to court of appeals.
J. F. Smith, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., Sam B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., and H. C. Clark, for the State.
The defendant was indicted in the Bates circuit court for keeping a bawdy house, in violation of section 3811, Rev. St. 1889. She moved to quash because the indictment was too uncertain and indefinite to apprise her of the nature of the charge against her; that it failed to charge any offense under the laws of this state; and for other defects as to particularity. The motion to quash was overruled, and defendant excepted. The cause went to trial, and defendant was convicted, and her fine assessed at $200. She moved for a new trial on the ground that the court erred in overruling her motion to quash; that the court erred in admitting evidence; that the finding was against the law and the evidence. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted. A motion in arrest was filed, renewing substantially the grounds of the motion to quash. This motion was also overruled, and defendant excepted. She thereupon perfected her appeal to the Kansas city court of appeals. In that court, for the first time, in her assignment of errors she raised the question that the statute under which she was prosecuted was unconstitutional because the punishment was cruel and excessive. Thereupon the Kansas City court of appeals transferred the cause to this court "because said cause involves the construction of the constitution of this state." The record discloses that the so-called "constitutional question" was not raised at any stage of the cause in the circuit court either by the motion to quash, by objection to evidence, by instruction, or by the motions for new trial or in arrest of judgment. To give this court jurisdiction on the ground that the case involves the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Canton v. McDaniel
...by the instruction and ruled adversely to defendant, the cause was properly sent to this court by the court of appeals. [State v. Raymond, 156 Mo. 117, 56 S.W. 894; Kirkwood v. Meramec Highlands Co., 160 Mo. 111, S.W. 1072.] The controlling facts developed on the trial are in substance as f......
-
Town of Canton v. McDaniel
...by the instruction, and ruled adversely to defendant, the cause was properly sent to this court by the Court of Appeals. State v. Raymond, 156 Mo. 118, 56 S. W. 894; Kirkwood v. Meramec Highlands Co., 160 Mo. 111, 60 S. W. The controlling facts developed on the trial are in substance as fol......
-
Jacobs v. City of St. Joseph
...jurisdiction? That question, on the authority of an unbroken line of decisions, is not open to an affirmative answer. State v. Raymond, 156 Mo. 117, 56 S. W. 894; Coleman v. Cole, 158 Mo. 253, 59 S. W. 106; Kirkwood v. Meramec Highlands Co., 160 Mo. 111, 60 S. W. 1072; Clark v. Porter, 162 ......
-
Jacobs v. City of St. Joseph
...jurisdiction? That question, on the authority of an unbroken line of decisions, is not open to an affirmative answer. [State v. Raymond, 156 Mo. 117, 56 S.W. 894; Coleman v. Cole, 158 Mo. 253, 59 S.W. 106; Kirkwood v. Meramec Highlands Co., 160 Mo. 111; Clark v. Porter, 162 Mo. 516, 63 S.W.......