State v. Woodward

• Decision Date: 07 May 1888
• Parties: The State v. Woodward, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 220

95 Mo. 129

The State v. Woodward, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 7, 1888

Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. -- Hon. M. G. McGregor, Judge.

Affirmed.

McReynolds & Halliburton for appellant.

B. G Boone, Attorney General, for the state.

(1) The instructions fully and clearly declared the law and were all that the evidence justified the court in giving. R. S., sec 1374. (2) Where affidavits are filed for and against a motion for a new trial, the discretion of the trial court will not be interfered with unless defendant is prejudiced. State v. Griffith, 63 Mo. 545. (3) Statutes prohibiting separating of jurors should be reasonably construed. Where it appears that no opportunity was afforded for a juror to have been tampered with or defendant prejudiced, he will not be heard to complain. State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220; State v. Collins, 89 Mo. 245; State v. Washburn, 91 Mo. 571.

Norton C. J. Ray, J., absent.

OPINION

Norton, C. J.

Defendant was tried in the Jasper county circuit court under an indictment charging him with maliciously and feloniously shooting and wounding a two-year-old heifer. He was convicted of the charge and fined one hundred dollars, and from this judgment he has appealed to this court, and no brief having been filed on his behalf, we are driven to an inspection of the record for ascertainment of the grounds on which he relies to support his appeal.

The first ground which the record presents is to the action of the court in overruling defendant's objection to the introduction of any evidence because of an alleged insufficiency of the indictment. This objection was properly overruled. Leaving out the formal parts of the indictment, it charges that, "on the day of August, 1885, at the county of Jasper and state of Missouri, Harry Woodward did then and there feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously wound a certain two-year-old heifer, the property of one Albert Musser, by then and there shooting said heifer in the left fore leg with a shotgun loaded with gunpowder and leaden shot, which said shot so discharged from said gun entered into the flesh of said heifer and through its skin, thereby causing and inflicting a wound on the left leg of said heifer," etc. The indictment charges the offence in the language and as laid down in the forms, is explicit, and in all respects sufficient.

It is also insisted that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial, because of discovery of new evidence, and because the jury separated without leave of court or consent of parti...