Wm. Webber v. State
Decision Date | 31 March 1846 |
Citation | 10 Mo. 4 |
Parties | WM. WEBBER v. THE STATE OF MISSOURI. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT.
FIELD & KRIBBEN, for Appellant. I. The special verdict was insufficient to warrant a conviction. 1. Because it found no offense at all as charged in the indictment. It found the defendant guilty of “charging Morton,” &c. The term “““charging,” by no construction admissible in criminal proceedings, can be regarded as the equivalent of “writing and publishing,” which are the words of the indictment. 2. It found no libel in George Morton as charged in the indictment. In the language of the special verdict, the libel, if any, was concerning Mr. Morton. But the court cannot know that the George Morton of the indictment, is the Mr. Morton of the verdict. 3. Because the verdict does not find the offense of which it speaks, to have been committed in St. Louis county. 4. Because the verdict finds no time when the offense was committed. It might have been more than a year before indictment found. 5. Because the verdict finds no malice or falsehood in the defendant's charge, both of which are essential ingredients in every libel. 6. Because the words found in the verdict are different in sense and meaning from those set out in the indictment. 7. Because the verdict finds no libel in the German language, and herein departs from the charge in the indictment. The counsel for the appellant, in support of the foregoing, cites the following authorities: 5 Bac. Abr. 32, title Verdict; King v. Francis, 2 Strange, 1015; Scharff v. Commonwealth, 2 Binney, 514; Commonwealth v. Call, 21 Pick. 509; Dyer v. Commonwealth, 23 Pick. 402; Jenks v. Hallett, 1 Caine's R. 60; 2 Hawk. 627; King v. Hazel, 1 Leach, 406. II. The defendant insists that the verdict is equivalent to an acquittal, and that he is entitled to his discharge. The rule, as it is extracted from the cases, is conceived to be, that where the special verdict substantially finds an offense included in the indictment, but omits some circumstance necessary to warrant a judgment, or where the judgment is so imperfect that the meaning of the jury cannot be collected from it, the court will award a venire de novo; but where the matter found is in substance no offense at all, or not an offense contained in the indictment, the defendant will be discharged. Defendant insists: 1. That the words found in the verdict are not libelous. 2. That if libelous, they differ from those charged in the indictment, and therefore could never warrant a judgment of conviction under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Saussele
...special verdicts, actually seem to have been decided on the basis of definiteness, certainty and responsiveness of the verdict. See Webber v. State, 10 Mo. 4, cited in the DeWitt case, supra, 186 Mo., loc. cit 68, 84 S.W. 956. Of course, a verdict that does not refer to the indictment in it......
-
Buckley v. Knapp
...found for the plaintiff they might give the plaintiff compensatory and exemplary damages. A libeller may be indicted and punished. (Weber v. State, 10 Mo. 4.) Exemplary or punitory damages are not recoverable in such cases. (Austin v. Wilson, 4 Cush. 273; Taber v. Hutson, 5 Ind. 326; 11 Ind......
-
State v. De Witt
...is so uncertain and indefinite that it will not support the judgment, this defect may be reached by a motion in arrest of judgment. [Webber v. State, 10 Mo. 4; Davidson v. Peck, 4 Mo. 438; Griffin Samuel, 6 Mo. 50.] In 22 Ency. Plead. & Prac., p. 873, the doctrine is stated that "a verdict ......
-
State v. McGee
...issue submitted by the instructions of the court. State v. Pierce, 136 Mo. 40; State v. Rowe, 142 Mo. 442; State v. Jones, supra; Webber v. State, 10 Mo. 8; Clark's Proc., 485; 1 Bish. New Crim. Law, sec. 1005; Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr. (9 Ed.), sec. 756; State v. Whitaker, 89 N.C. 473; Gibbs ......