State v. Rochforde
| Citation | 52 Mo. 199 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JAMES ROCHFORDE, et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1873 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction.
Mauro and Laughlin, for Appellants.
The complaint does not sufficiently describe the offense.
R. S. McDonald, for Respondent.
The complaint sets forth the offense charged, fully and clearly according to the language of the Statute. (W. S., p. 496.)
The defendants moved to dismiss the information in this case, because the same was insufficient, and afterwards moved in arrest of judgment for the same reason, both of which motions were overruled. The ruling of the court on these motions constitutes the only question for our consideration, as the record discloses no other point of law saved. The information is not only inartificially drawn, but it is absolutely wanting in certainty. It alleges that the defendants, wickedly devising and intending to defraud and prejudice the St. Louis Gas Light Company, conspired and confederated and agreed together, fraudulently and feloniously to commit larceny by stealing, taking and carrying away the property, goods and chattels of the said company, and that in pursuance of said conspiracy, they unlawfully and feloniously altered, changed and tampered with a certain gas meter, the property of the said company, with the intent to steal, take and carry away certain valuable property and goods of the company.
The information, it will be observed, does not specify any particular property or goods that the defendants conspired to steal, or that they intended to take or carry away. They are charged with altering and tampering with a gas meter, but it is not alleged that they either took the meter or the gas. It is averred that they intended to take certain property, but what property is not designated. There is nothing here sufficiently definite to put the defendants in possession of the charges for which they were held to answer.
The information is founded upon the statute, (1 W. S., p. 496, § 29,) defining conspiracies, and assessing punishment for the same. But the 30th section of the act provides that no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy, unless some act besides such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement.
The charge in the present case does not come...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Meysenburg
...... offense, than it would be under a common-law charge.". [Whart., Cr. Pl. and Prac. (9 Ed.), sec. 220; to the same. effect see Heard on Crim. Pl., 161, 162, 163, 165, 166;. Stener v. State, 17 The Reporter 670; State v. Gardner, 28 Mo. 90; State v. Rochforde, 52 Mo. 199; United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 26 L.Ed. 1135; United States [171 Mo. 45] v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; 1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl., 88; 2 Hawk., P. C., ch. 25, sec. 111.]. . . Mr. Bishop, in his admirable treatise, says: "The doctrine. ......
-
State v. Meysenburg
...220. To the same effect, see Heard, Cr. Pl. 161-163, 165, 166; Stener v. State (Wis.) 18 N. W. 433; State v. Gardner, 28 Mo. 90; State v. Rochforde, 52 Mo. 199; U. S. v. Carll, 105 U. S. 611, 26 L. Ed. 1135; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588; 1 Archb. Cr. Prac. & Pl. 88; 2 Ha......
-
State v. Hill
...and does not clearly inform the defendant of the charge or charges against him so as to enable him to prepare his defense. State v. Rochford, 52 Mo. 199; State McGinnis, 29 S.W. 842, 126 Mo. 564. (2) There is a misjoinder of causes of action or offenses in said indictment in that the indict......
-
Donnell v. England
...... allowed the jury to calculate the other interest involved. Home Trust Co. v. Josephson, 95 S.W.2d 1156, 339 Mo. 170; State ex rel. Witte Hardware Co. v. McElhinnel,. 100 S.W.2d 26, 231 Mo.App. 860. (8) The instruction requested. by the appellant, marked "Refused ......