State v. Shields
| Decision Date | 21 June 1886 |
| Citation | 1 S.W. 336 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHIELDS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jasper circuit court.
Indictment and conviction for the larceny of goods from a railway depot.
The Attorney General, for the State. J. D. Perkins, for appellant, Sheridan Shields.
At the March term, 1884, of the circuit court of Jasper county, the defendant was tried and convicted of burglary and larceny, from which judgment of conviction he has appealed to this court, and the only question raised on the appeal is as to the sufficiency of the indictment, which, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: "That Sheridan Shields, on the __ day of ____, 1883, at the county of Jasper and state of Missouri, did then and there feloniously and burglariously break into and enter a depot building of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, there situate, the same being a building in which divers goods, merchandise, and valuable things were then and there kept and deposited, with the intent the goods, chattels, and valuable things in said depot building then and there being, then and there feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away, and one pair of men's pants, of the value of ten dollars, of the personal goods and chattels of W. H. Johnson, then and there in said depot building being found, did then and there feloniously steal, take, and carry away," etc.
The indictment in question is framed on section 1298, Rev. St., which, among other things, provides "that any person who shall be convicted of breaking and entering any shop, store, * * * or other building, * * * in which there shall be at the time some human being, or any goods, wares, or merchandise, or other valuable thing, kept or deposited, with the intent to steal, or commit any felony therein, shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of burglary in the second degree."
The specific objection made to the indictment is that it neither alleges that the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company was a corporation, nor that, as such, it was capable of owning property. The precise question presented has not, so far as I am aware, been passed upon by this court; but the identical point was raised in the following cases, where it is held that it was not necessary to the sufficiency of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henschel
...of a copartnership, an individual, or corporation." But the attorney-general suggests that on the authority of the old case of State v. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, the just cited and relied upon ought to be overruled. The case of State v. Shields has never been followed or referred to at any time ......
-
Mattox v. State
... ... stated: Fisher v. State, 40 N. J. Law, 169; ... State v. Grant, 104 N.C. 908, 10 S.E. 554; State ... v. Fitzpatrick, 9 Houst. 388, 32 A. 1072; Stanly v ... Railroad Co., 89 N.C. 331; McLaughlin v. Com., 4 ... Rawle, 464; State v. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, 1 ... S.W. 336. In the following cases it was held that the fact of ... incorporation must be alleged: Wallace v. People, 63 ... Ill. 451; Cohen v. People, 5 Parker, ... [41 S.E. 713.] ... Cr. R. 330; Pells v. State, 20 Fla. 774. In many of ... the cases cited above other cases ... ...
-
State v. Henschel
...We cannot admit the contention of the Attorney General that the above cases should be overruled on the authority of State v. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, 1 S. W. 336, or by force of sections 5114, 5115, R. S. 1909. It is true the Shields Case holds the contrary of the more recent opinions above cit......
-
State v. Parsons.
...in an indictment to allege the corporate capacity of the owner of stolen property.” In support of this text the court cites State v. Shields, 89 Mo. 259, 1 S. W. 336; Fisher v. State, 40 N. J. Law, 169; 2 Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, § 718; 5 Thompson on Law of Corporations, § 6444, and......