State v. Ruth
| Decision Date | 23 October 1883 |
| Citation | 14 Mo.App. 226 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOSEPH RUTH, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, CADY, J.
Affirmed.
J. G. LODGE, for the appellant.
M. W. HOGAN, for the respondent.
The defendant was convicted of petit larceny in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. The information charges defendant with stealing a coat worth $25, and alleges that the offence was committed in the city of St. Louis. There was testimony tending to show that on the day named in the information, the prosecuting witness hung his coat on the rack in the hall of his boarding house, No. 1203 Washington Avenue, when he went to supper; that, when he came out from supper, the coat was gone; that the prosecuting witness, at half-past seven of the same evening, saw defendant in a second-hand shop on Christy Avenue, between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with the coat in his hand; that defendant ran away, and threw down the coat in his flight, having escaped from the prosecuting witness, who attempted to arrest him. The cause was tried by the court, which found defendant guilty of the charge.
The venue is laid in the city of St. Louis, and it is contended that there is no testimony tending to prove the venue, or that the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the court.
It is true that no witness says in so many words that the offence was committed in the city of St. Louis. But this is not necessary. It is enough if the testimony was such as ought to have satisfied the trier of the fact that the place of the offence was that laid in the information. The State v. McGinniss, 74 Mo. 245; The State v. West, 69 Mo. 404. The case is not like The State v. McGinniss ( supra), where the evidence was that the prosecuting witness lived in Clay County at the date of the trial, but there was nothing to show that he lived there at the date of the burglary, the venue being laid in Clay County, and the offence charged being a burglary at the house of the witness. The case rather resembles The State v. Burns (48 Mo. 438). The supreme court in that case sustained a conviction for murder in the first degree. The venue was laid in St. Louis County. The testimony was, that the homicide was committed on Mullanphy Street, but it was no where said that Mullanphy Street was in the city or in the county of St. Louis. A diagram of the locality was introduced, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schatt
...of the offense, are more potent to that end than those appearing in the opinion last above cited, given by our Supreme Court. In State v. Ruth, 14 Mo.App. 226, the offense charged the larceny of a coat in the city of St. Louis. The evidence mentioned No. 1203 Washington avenue, without desi......
-
State v. Schatt
...S. W. 28; State v. McGinnis, 76 Mo. 326: State v. Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 129, 1 S. W. 145; State v. Miller, 93 Mo. 263, 6 S. W. 57; State v. Ruth, 14 Mo. App. 226; State v. Fitzporter, 16 Mo. App. 282; State v. Roach, 64 Mo. App. There is no direct proof that the offense was committed in the c......
-
Turney v. United Railways Company of St. Louis
...violent presumption, will be regarded as sufficient. [State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438; State v. Schatt, 128 Mo.App. 622, 107 S.W. 10; State v. Ruth, 14 Mo.App. 226.] It appears that Clarendon avenue is a public traveled street of a great city, and runs north and south, and defendant's car tracks......
-
Turney v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
...violent presumption, will be regarded as sufficient. State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438; State v. Schatt, 128 Mo. App. 622, 107 S. W. 10; State v. Ruth, 14 Mo. App. 226. It thus appears that Clarendon avenue is a public traveled street, which runs north and south of a great city, and defendant's ca......