State v. White

Decision Date06 August 1902
Citation96 Mo. App. 34,69 S.W. 684
PartiesSTATE v. WHITE.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from circuit court, Ripley county; Jas. L. Fort, Judge.

J. B. White was convicted of dealing in timber and operating a private railroad, and appeals. Reversed.

L. F. Dinning and J. C. Sheppard, for appellant. Thos. F. Lane, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J.

This prosecution was instituted in the Ripley county circuit court to the November term, 1901, by information of the prosecuting attorney, against the Missouri Tie & Timber Company, a corporation dealing in timber, and operating a private railroad in said county, and against Mr. J. B. White, its president, and Mr. J. T. Henderson. During the progress of the trial, a nolle was entered as to all the defendants except Mr. White, the president of the said company. The trial proceeded as to the remaining defendant before a jury. At the conclusion thereof, he was found guilty, as charged in the information, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $60. After unsuccessful motions for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, the defendant appealed. The information is founded on section 9454, Rev. St. 1899, and it charges the Missouri Tie & Timber Company, a corporation, and its officers, the defendant, its president, and Mr. Henderson with misdemeanor, in that they did "unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly obstruct a certain public road" in Carter county, Mo., near the residence and farm of Mr. J. M. Randle," etc., by "building a railroad, with cross-ties and steel rails, in and upon, along and across, the right of way of said road," etc. At the trial it appeared that the public road in question had been used and improved as such for some 20 years; that the Missouri Tie & Timber Company, in order to bring out timber for its business purposes, had built its railroad in such a manner as to obstruct the public road for about 160 feet of its course. The company had a recorded deed for a "right of way" for the aforesaid railroad through the farm of Mr. Randle, who, it may be inferred, was the proprietor of the land on both sides of the public road. Defendant is the president of the company, but there is no proof whatever of any personal direction, management, or participation on his part in the acts charged to constitute the misdemeanor, other than may be inferred from his office as president....

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Herzig
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 28 November 2012
    ...prove beyond a reasonable doubt a road is public by dedication in a criminal trial for obstructing a public highway); State v. White, 96 Mo.App. 34, 69 S.W. 684 (1902) (holding the fact finder must first determine whether a road is public by way of prescription before determining whether th......
  • The State v. Miller
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 February 1922
    ...is insufficient, unless it was shown that defendant personally participated in the crime charged. State v. McAdoo, 80 Mo. 216; State v. White, 96 Mo.App. 34; State v. Runzi, 105 Mo.App. 319; State v. Vivano, 206 S.W. 235. (d) Possession to support a conviction, under the theory here present......
  • State v. Curtis
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 11 January 1915
    ...and cannot both be true. State v. Lockwood, 119 Mo. 463; State v. Weyland, 126 Mo.App. 723; State v. Lawrence, 178 Mo. 350; State v. White, 96 Mo.App. 34; State Boggess, 86 Mo.App. 632; State v. Flint, 62 Mo. 393. (2) The terms "negligently" and "knowingly," while of opposite significance, ......
  • State v. Faith
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 12 May 1914
    ... ... court entered of record. This the defendant failed to show ... Until such order was made the old road continued to be a ... public highway ...          The ... strongest case supporting defendant's view that we have ... been able to find is that of State v. White, 96 ... Mo.App. 34, 69 S.W. 684, where a corporation had obstructed a ... highway and it was held that the president of the corporation ... who was not present and had no knowledge whatever of the ... incident could not be held under this statute for obstructing ... a highway, but holds that ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT