State v. York
| Decision Date | 31 January 1856 |
| Citation | 22 Mo. 462 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Defendant in Error, v. YORK & YORK, Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The constitutionality of a law establishing a new county can not be inquired into upon a motion to quash an indictment found in a court of such county. (State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393, affirmed.)
2. An indictment under the 37th section of the 2d article of the act concerning crimes and punishments, (R. C. 1845,) which charges that the defendants (Y. & Y.) “on, &c., at, &c., upon the body of one J. M. J., then and there being, an assault did then and there unlawfully and feloniously make, and the said Y. & Y., with sticks, rocks, stones and knives, then and there, being deadly weapons, &c., in and upon the head, face and body of him, the said J., then and there did assault and beat, with the intent him, the said J., then and there feloniously to kill, contrary,” &c., is good.
Error to Dent Circuit Court.
J. R. Arnold, for plaintiff in error.
Gardenhire, (attorney general,) for the State.
This was an indictment for a felonious assault. The defendants appeared and pleaded not guilty. They were convicted and fined each the sum of five hundred dollars. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled. A motion likewise in arrest of judgment was made and overruled. Exceptions were taken and the case was brought here by writ of error.
We have endeavored in vain to get such a record here as would enable us to see what was done in the Circuit Court. We see a line or two of the evidence put down in the record, in what we suppose was meant for a bill of exceptions; but the clerk says this was not all the evidence; but he can not copy any more, because it was not saved or put down in writing. It is not the clerk's duty to save the evidence. It is the duty of the party excepting, either the circuit attorney, or the defendant's attorney.
There being here no evidence saved, it is not in our power to say whether the instructions were proper or not. Indeed we can not tell which were given or which refused. Some have marks near to them on the margin, thus, “+”; others, the word “rejected” on the margin; others, both the cross mark and the word ““rejected.” But the record nowhere states which were given or which refused. The indictment is copied in the record some three or four times, in answer to the various writs of certiorari which were from time to time awarded, and the reasons in arrest of judgment are also very prominent in the various efforts to complete the record.
From the reasons in arrest of judgment, a very important item, one indeed which was, in all probability, the ruling cause of bringing the case before this court, is the unconstitutionality of the county of Dent. There is nothing on the record to raise or support this question, and it strikes us as a novel proceeding for any of the courts of this state to undertake to kill off...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. McCaffery v. Aloe
...of a statute could not be predicated on an admission (State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393), which ruling has been approved and followed in State v. York, 22 Mo. 462, State v. 109 Mo. 439, 19 S.W. 197, Ex parte Renfrow, 112 Mo. 591, 20 S.W. 682, and State v. Searcy, 46 Mo.App. 421. When the validity o......
-
The State v. Butler
...v. Gardiner, 42 N.E. 999. (a) The constitutionality of the ordinance can not be attacked collaterally. State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393; State v. York, 22 Mo. 462; State v. 109 Mo. 443. (b) An officer de facto may be bribed as well as an officer de jure. One is an officer de facto who usurps an of......
-
State v. Aloe
...invalidity of a statute could not be predicated on an admission. State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393, which has been approved and followed in State v. York, 22 Mo. 462; State v. 109 Mo. 439, 19 S. W. 197; Ex parte Renfrow, 112 Mo. 591, 20 S. W. 682; and State v. Searcy, 46 Mo. App. 421. When the vali......
-
State v. Blan
...in this State, and held elsewhere, that an assault may be charged to have been made with several different kinds of weapons. State v. York, 22 Mo. 462; State v. McDonald, 67 Mo. 13; State v. Painter, 67 Mo. 85; Commonwealth v. Macloon, 101 Mass. 24; State v. McClintock, 1 G. Greene 392; Vid......