The State v. Langley
| Decision Date | 12 March 1913 |
| Citation | 154 S.W. 713,248 Mo. 545 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JOHN LANGLEY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. -- Hon. William T Ragland, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Thomas F. Gatts for appellant.
Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General, and A. W. Stewart for the State.
The information charges the offense in the language of the statute. R.S. 1909, sec. 4492. When the act defines the offense, it is sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the act. State v. Davis, 70 Mo. 464; State v. Adcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Block, 82 S.W 1103.
OPINION
At the January term, 1912, of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas, the defendant was convicted for violation of the provisions of section 4492, Revised Statutes 1909, which said section is as follows:
"If any mother of any infant child, under the age of sixteen years, or any father of any such infant child, born in or legitimatized by lawful wedlock, or any person who has adopted any such infant child, or any master or mistress of an apprentice, under such age, or other person having the legal care and control of any such infant shall, without lawful excuse, refuse or neglect to provide for such infant or apprentice necessary food, clothing or lodging, or shall unlawfully and purposely assault such infant or apprentice, whereby his life shall be endangered or his health shall have been or shall be likely to be permanently injured, the person so offending shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
Defendant's punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary. He appeals to this court.
The State's evidence tended to prove the following facts:
Defendant and his wife, Sadie Langley, had been married about twenty-five years, and had three children living at the time of the trial, each under the age of sixteen years. During the greater portion of the five years preceding the day of the trial, defendant and his wife, had, by mutual consent, lived apart, she having the three children with her. During this period the husband and wife were in continuous litigation, each trying to procure a divorce from the other. Three or four different suits were brought, but neither party was decreed a divorce. The final separation of husband and wife occurred in August, 1909, at which time the wife, taking the children and some of the household furniture with her, removed to what was known as the Shamrock building, in the city of Hannibal, Missouri, and she and the children continued to live there until the latter part of January, or first part of February, 1911, when she, taking the children with her, went across the river, and onto a farm in Illinois, to work for a farmer.
From August, 1909, till about January 25, 1911, defendant paid fifteen dollars per month to his wife to aid in providing for the children. These payments seem to have been made in compliance with an order of the court in which one of the divorce proceedings was pending. Just before defendant's wife removed, with the children, to Illinois, she told him that she was going to take the children and go to Illinois to work for a man named Green, who was to give her three dollars a week and provide a home for herself and children. Defendant consented to her going and taking the children with her, and then told her that he was going to his half-brother's, at St. Joseph, Missouri. The wife and children remained in Illinois for about three months, and until she became sick, when she returned to Hannibal and went to her mother's house, where she remained, sick, for a few weeks, and then, on May 15, 1911, she, with her children, again went to live at the Shamrock building. On May 18, 1911, defendant returned from St. Joseph to Hannibal, and was arrested three days later, charged with this offense. Defendant had no notice or knowledge of the return of his wife and children to Hannibal until May 18, 1911, the date of his return. The wife testified that she knew defendant's half-brother, in St. Joseph, well, but that she made no effort to notify him, or her husband through him, of the fact of her return or of the condition of the children.
Evidence was introduced by the State, over defendant's objection, showing that the children became destitute after the return from Illinois, and that their health was injured by reason of their not having sufficient food and clothing, but the court later, by instruction, directed the jury not to consider this part of the State's evidence, presumably on the theory that defendant had not been notified, and was without knowledge, of the situation at that time.
The evidence showed that prior to the time the wife and children went to Illinois they were living in one room, the floor of which was without carpet, with little or no furniture aside from a cook stove and bed in the room, and that during portions of this time the wife and children were without sufficient food and received aid from a charitable organization in the city of Hannibal. It is not shown what attitude defendant took with reference to supporting the children upon his return from St. Joseph.
Defendant testified in his own behalf that he had lived in Hannibal all his life, and had worked for eleven years at the powder plant there; that for the greater part of the seven years next preceding the trial he had worked at a cement plant there, but that on December 26, 1910, the work at the cement plant was discontinued until the following spring, during which interval he was without work; that he had paid his wife fifteen dollars a month until just before he left for St. Joseph, where he went to seek employment, and that before leaving he told his wife where he was going. His testimony corroborated that of his wife as to the arrangement she had made about taking the children with her to Illinois. He testified that during the time he was making the monthly payments of fifteen dollars he was working at the cement plant on the night shift at $ 1.60 per day, and that during a portion of that time he had worked for only about three or four nights in each week, and had to pay car fare out of his wages. He also testified that, in addition to paying his wife fifteen dollars a month, he purchased school books and some clothing for the children, and had a grocer named McDonald deliver groceries to his wife and children at different times up till she left for Illinois; that from the time his wife went to Illinois until he returned to Hannibal, in May, 1911, he received no word from her, or from any source, concerning his family, and that he knew nothing of their condition until after his return to Hannibal. Defendant further testified that while in St. Joseph he procured a decree of divorce, that the court made an order awarding him the custody of the children, and that, a few days before he returned to Hannibal, he re-married; that, upon his return to Hannibal, he demanded the children, but that their mother refused to let him have them, and in a day or so thereafter had him arrested.
Witness McDonald testified in behalf of defendant that he had been in the grocery business at Hannibal for thirty years, and had known the defendant about twenty-five years. Corroborating defendant's testimony in that regard, he testified that he had furnished groceries to defendant's wife at different intervals up until she left for Illinois. This witness also testified that defendant had been a customer of his for several years, and had always paid his bills, including those for the groceries furnished the wife after defendant and his wife had separated.
Appellant complains (1) that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict, and (2) that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial