State v. Vaughan
| Decision Date | 20 November 1906 |
| Citation | 199 Mo. 108,97 S.W. 879 |
| Parties | STATE v. VAUGHAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert M. Foster, Judge.
Harry H. Vaughan, alias Harry Vaughan, was convicted of robbery as an habitual criminal, and appeals. Affirmed.
John E. Bowcock, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.
The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of robbery in the first degree as an habitual criminal. The offense of which he was convicted was alleged in the information to have been committed October 15, 1904. The name of the person robbed was Gustave W. Seiving, and the amount taken from him $24. At a trial had on the 27th day of January, 1905, the defendant was tried, found guilty of robbery in the first degree as charged, and his punishment fixed at 35 years in the penitentiary. He appeals and assigns error. Defendant is not represented in this court.
The facts, briefly stated, are: That at the time of the robbery Gustave W. Seiving was the owner of a drug store at No. 3601 Jefferson avenue, in the city of St. Louis. That at 20 minutes before 11 o'clock on the night of October 15, 1904, Seiving was in his store talking to a friend of his, named Riley. Riley was near the front door and walking towards the door, when an unknown man (who afterwards turned out to be Bruce Morris) walked in at said door, pointed a pistol at Riley, and demanded of him that the cash drawer be opened. Riley at first laughed, saying that he was not the proprietor, when Morris told him not to laugh, or he would get his head blown off. Just about that time Seiving walked out from behind the prescription case, and Morris demanded of him to give over the money. Seiving walked with Morris to the cash register, opened it, and took out $24, which he gave to Morris, Morris still holding the pistol on Seiving. Morris then asked what money they had in their pockets and Seiving gave him 30 cents, Riley having nothing. An effort was made to open the safe, but Seiving assured Morris that there was no money in the safe. After some more threats and striking of Seiving by Morris with his pistol, Morris started to leave. Both Riley and Seiving saw a white man standing at the front door at the time that Morris was in the store, who wore a black slouch hat. The man at the door called out to Morris to take Seiving back there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oertel
...trial is amply sufficient to establish all the elements of the crime charged and fully supports the verdict returned by the jury. State v. Vaughan, 199 Mo. 108; State Concelia, 250 Mo. 411. OPINION RAILEY, C. On February 6, 1917, the Assistant Circuit Attorney of the City of St. Louis, Miss......
-
The State v. Saunders
... ... be given to appellant's testimony and its purpose was so ... limited in the instruction. The latter, therefore, was not ... error. [ State v. Carr, 146 Mo. 1, 47 S.W. 790; ... State v. Boyd, 178 Mo. 2, 76 S.W. 979; State v ... Vaughan, 199 Mo. 108, 97 S.W. 879.] ... Properly ... interpreted, there is no conflict or inconsistency, as ... contended by the appellant, between this instruction and that ... numbered 6, which we have reviewed. [288 Mo. 656] The latter ... had reference to testimony of the ... ...
-
State v. Oertel
...262 Mo. 181, 170 S. W. 1114; State v. Moulton, 262 Mo. 137, 170 S. W. 1111; State v. Payne, 223 Mo. 112, 122 S. W. 1062; State v. Vaughan, 199 Mo. 108, 97 S. W. 879; Ex parte Joseph Roberts, 166 Mo. 207, 65 S. W. 726; State v. Moore, 121 Mo. loc. cit. 517, 26 S. W. 345, 42 Am. St. Rep. 542.......
-
State v. Saunders
...therefore, was not error. State v. Carr, 146 Mo. 1, 47 S. W. 790; State v. Boyd, 178 Mo. loc. cit. 13, 76 S. W. 979; State v. Vaughan, 199 Mo. 108, 97 S. W. 879. Properly interpreted, there is no conflict or inconsistency, as contended by the appellant, between this instruction and that num......