State v. Smith

The State v. Smith

State v. Smith, 31 Mo. 120 (1860)

Court: Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 15, 1860
Judges: Ewing, Other
Citations: 31 Mo. 120

Headnotes

1. In an indictment for the fraudulent and felonious uttering, publishing and selling of a counterfeit bank note, it is not necessary to describe said note specifically; (R. C. 1855, p. 1178, § 81;) where, however, the said note is described specifically, the proof must conform to the allegations.

Summary

Appeal from Iron Circuit Court. This was an indictment for the fraudulent, felonious and false uttering, publishing and selling of a counterfeit bank note purporting to have been issued by the Southern Bank of St. Louis. The note was set forth in the indictment. In the description in the indictment the president of the bank was Jas. T. Watson. According to the proof made the president’s name was Jas. J. Watson.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ewing

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

Ewing, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the trial of this cause the circuit attorney read in evidence, in support of the charge, a bank bill which differed from that set out in the indictment in the initial letter of the middle name of the president of the bank, and this is one of the errors assigned.

*121 It was unnecessary for the pleader to have described the bill so minutely in the indictment as he did ; (R. C. 1855, p. 1178, art. 6, § 31;) but having done so, and professing as he does to set it out according to its tenor, he will be held to strict proof. Where the matter of a written instrument is introduced into the pleading, so as to imply that a correct recital is intended, very slight discrepancies between the instrument set out and that produced in evidence are fatal. (2 Rus. on Cr. 797; 2 East P. C. -.) And especially when the variance relates to an allegation descriptive of that which is material, as was the middle name or the initial letter of the middle name of the officer of the bank. (King v. Clark, 7 Mo. 271 ; Izetters v. State, 7 Ind. 660 .)

As for this reason the judgment will be reversed, it is unnecessary to notice other points in the bill of exceptions.

Judgment reversed ;

the other judges concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Gabriel116 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. 1938)
State v. Clinton67 Mo. 380 (1878)
Haupt v. State34 S.E. 313 (Ga. 1899)
State v. Fay65 Mo. 490 (1877)
State v. Stewart.63 S.W.2d 210 (Mo. Ct. App. 1933)
State v. Chamberlain75 Mo. 382 (1882)

Most recent

State v. Gabriel116 S.W.2d 75 (Mo. 1938)
State v. Arenz100 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. 1936)
State v. Stewart.63 S.W.2d 210 (Mo. Ct. App. 1933)
State v. Jarrell81 S.E. 523 (W. Va. 1914)
Gallais v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Co.105 S.W. 693 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
State v. McNerney94 S.W. 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906)

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Zellers v. State, 7 Ind. 659 (1856)	13
	Frazier v. Gibson, 7 Mo. 271 (1841)	5

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list