TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Magrath

The State v. Magrath

State v. Magrath, 19 Mo. 678 (1854)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1854
Judges
Gamble, Ryland, Scott
Citations
19 Mo. 678
Headnotes
1. Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. Rep. 862, affirmed. 2. Time is not material in an indictment under tlie 38th section of article 2 of the act concerning crimes and punishments, (R. C. 1845,) so that the offence is alleged and proved to have been committed before the finding of the indictment, and within one year before.
Summary
Jippectl from St. Louis Circuit Court. The defendants were indicted under the 34th and 38th sections of article 2 of the act concerning crimes and punishments, (R. O. 1845.) The indictment contained three counts. The third, upon which alone the defendants were convicted, was framed upon the 38th section, and was as follows : “ And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that John Magrath, &c., on, &c., at, &c., with force and arms, in and upon one Jeremiah Ryan, in the peace of the state then and there being, feloniously did make an assault, and that they, the said John'Magrath, &c., with certain stones and brickbats, each of the length, &c., which they, the said John Magrath, &e., in their right hands then and there had and held, the said Jeremiah Ryan, then and there feloniously, wilfully and by their act and procurement, did beat, batter, bruise, wound and contuse, giving to him, the said Jeremiah Ryan, then and there, with the stones and brickbats aforesaid, in and upon the head and side of him, the said J. R., divers wounds, bruises and contusions, each of the length, &c., and so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said J. R., then and there, in manner and form aforesaid, was wounded, disfigured, and did receive great bodily harm by the felonious act of them, the said John Magrath, &c., against the peace,” &c. A motion to quash this count was overruled. The indictment charged that the offence was committed on the 1st of July, 1853. The proof was that it was committed on the first Sunday after the 4th of July. After a conviction upon the third count, the defendants moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, which motions being overruled, they appealed to this court. 1. The third count was insufficient. 2. The offence was proved to have been committed after the time laid in the indictment. Time is material, because the offence is barred by statute, unless the indictment is found within one year after its commission. (R. C. 1845, p. 895, §25.) 1. The third count was sufficient, as decided by this court. 9 Mo. Rep. 863. 2. Time is not material, if the offence proved was committed within one year before the finding of the indictment.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ryland

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Ryland, Judge.

1. Thé main questions in this case have substantially been passed upon by this court, in the case of Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. Rep. 852 . This court will not disturb the decision in that case, and it must govern this.

2. The point about the time is not well taken. It is not important, as to what day is alleged or what day is proved, so that the time in the indictment is within the period prescribed for limiting the prosecution, and the proof is of a day before the finding of the bill of indictment by the grand jury, and ' within the period prescribed for limitation.

The judgment must be affirmed, Judge Scott concurring: Judge Gamble not sitting.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1855–1856: 31877–1878: 21879–1880: 11881–1882: 11883–1884: 31907–1908: 11927–1928: 11951–1952: 118552026peak 1855 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Ward74 Mo. 253 (1881)
  2. Scoggins v. State32 Ark. 205 (1877)
  3. State v. Hughes82 Mo. 86 (1884)
  4. Hutchinson v. State62 Ind. 556 (1878)
  5. Rhodes v. Commonwealth78 Va. 692 (1884)
  6. State v. Bailey21 Mo. 484 (1855)

Most recent

  1. State v. Schonenberger250 P.2d 777 (Kan. 1952)
  2. Ex Parte Sydnor10 S.W.2d 63 (Mo. Ct. App. 1928)
  3. State v. Moore102 S.W. 537 (Mo. 1907)
  4. State v. Hughes82 Mo. 86 (1884)
  5. Rhodes v. Commonwealth78 Va. 692 (1884)
  6. State v. Findley77 Mo. 338 (1883)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. 852 (1846) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list