State v. Rogers
| Decision Date | 31 August 1865 |
| Citation | 36 Mo. 138 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. JOSEPH ROGERS, et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Linn Circuit Court.
Lander, for plaintiffs in error.
The only question presented in this case, is as to the validity of the recognizance. The record is certainly very imperfect. It appears that Rogers was arrested in Linn county for larceny, and taken before a magistrate, where he confessed the crime whereof he stood charged. The magistrate committed him to jail, but it does not appear of record whether he was actually received by the jailer or not. Afterwards he appeared before Judge Smith, judge of the judicial circuit in which Linn county is situated, and entered into a recognizance with the plaintiff in error (Brownlee as security) in the sum of five hundred dollars, conditioned that he, the said Rogers, would appear at the next term of the Linn county Circuit Court to answer to an indictment to be preferred against him for “horse stealing,” and not depart the same without leave, &c. This recognizance was among the papers in the cause, but not marked ““filed.” An indictment was regularly returned by the grand jury against the prisoner, who did not answer when called, but made default. The recognizance was then duly prosecuted to forfeiture, and a scire facias issued thereon.
At the return term of the sci. fa. the plaintiff in error Brownlee appeared and filed his demurrer, alleging as his principal objections, that the principal (Rogers) being committed to jail by the justice, it did not appear of record, or otherwise, that said Rogers was ever discharged from the jail; that the recognizance was not filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court; and that the writ does not show that he was charged with any offence known to the law. Other points were made, but they require no particular notice.
The court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the State. The record shows enough to justify us in presuming that Judge Smith acquired jurisdiction and that the prisoner was regularly released from jail on habeas corpus, and that the jailer, in all probability, in making his return to the writ kept it, instead of delivering it over and filing it with the papers in the clerk's office. It is shown that the justice issue his mittimus ordering him to be sent to jail on the 18th day of Marc 1863; that he was brought before the judge and entered into recognizance on the 8th day of April thereafter; and that on the 17th day of the same month the grand jury returned their indictment into court, and that he, being then called, came not.
The conclusion from these facts is irresistible, that he was committed to jail; that he was released from jail when he entered into recognizance; and his actual default fully appears of record. Under these circumstances, we think we are abundantly justified in presuming that all the necessary steps were complied with, and the proceedings were regular and proper. All proper presumptions will be indulged in favor of the judgments of the Circuit Courts, and they must appear clearly erroneous before they will be disturbed. It has been argued here that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knox County v. Brown
... ... Wallace, 22 ... Mo.App. 377; Gaslight Co. v. Pratt, 7 Mo.App. 573; ... White v. Chaney, 20 Mo.App. 389. (3) Where the ... petition fails to state all the facts necessary to constitute ... a cause of action, it is fatal. There can be no waiver of ... such an omission. The objection may be made ... Newman, 41 Mo. 509; Dorschlein v. Orth, 32 Mo ... 366; State v. Dorman, 11 Mo. 636; Riney v ... Valandingham, 9 Mo. 819; State v. Rogers, 36 ... Mo. 138; Tucker v. Railroad, 54 Mo. 177; Nordman ... v. Hitchcock, 40 Mo. 178; Peacock v. Nelson, 50 Mo. 256; ... 74 Mo. 142; 74 Mo. 179; ... ...
-
Castleman v. Relfe
...and the following authorities all recognize the distinction: Valle v. Fleming, 19 Mo. 454; Speck v. Wohlein, 22 Mo. 310; The State, etc., v. Rogers et al., 36 Mo. 138; Strouse v. Drennan et al., 41 Mo. 289; Fithian v. Monks et al., 43 Mo. 522; Mitchell v. Bliss et al., 47 Mo. 353. III. The ......
-
Ashby v. Shaw
...the contract was in writing and was for payment of ten per cent interest. Good v. Crow, 51 Mo. 212; State v. Sullivan, 51 Mo. 522; State v. Rogers, 36 Mo. 138; Walter v. Cathcart, 18 Mo. 256. The court will not reverse but only correct the judgment for such error as to interest if it be one......
-
State v. Morgan
... ... State v. Poston, 63 Mo. 521; State v ... Millsaps, 69 Mo. 359; State v. Stout, 6 Halst ... 124. (2) Where the appellant does not set out in his abstract ... all the evidence in the trial below, this court will not ... interfere with the finding of issues of fact. State v ... Rogers, 36 Mo. 138; State v. Millsaps, 69 Mo ... 359. (3) When a recognizance enumerates several things to be ... done, it may be forfeited if any one of them is left undone ... The recognizance here enumerates four things to be done. Not ... one of them was performed. R. S. 1889, sec. 4284; 1 ... ...