TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Donnegan

The State of Missouri v. William Donnegan

State v. Donnegan, 34 Mo. 67 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1863
Judges
Bates, Bay, Dryden
Citations
34 Mo. 67
Cited by 6
Headnotes
Practice, criminal. — Where a larceny of several articles of property is charged, the State may elect to prosecute for some and not for all. Practice, criminal. — Proof at the trial of the stealing of a gelding -will support an indictment for the larceny of a horse.
Summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. Evidence of stealing a gelding will support an indictment for stealing a horse. (Gravely v. Ford, 2 Ld. Ray. 1209; R. C. 1855, p. 1175, § 22, & p. 1176, § 27; Hooker v. State, 4 Ohio, Ham. 348; Baldwin v. People, 1 111., Scam. 304.) II. It is lawful for a circuit attorney to enter a nolle prosequi to a part of a count in an indictment. (1 Chit. Crim. L. 480, n. a.; Commonwealth v. Tuck, 20 Pick. 356, 364, &c.; Comm. v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 177; Comm. v. McMangle, 1 Mass. 516; Comm. v. Lewis, 1 Mass. 517; Rex v. Butter-worth Moss et al., 1 Russ. & Ry. 520; Rex v. Hempstead, IRuss. & Ry. 343 ; Anonymous, 31 Me. 592.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Bates

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

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted for stealing a horse, mare, buggy and set of harness. Before the trial, the circuit attorney announced that he would not further prosecute the indictment against the defendant so far as the same relates to the charge of the larceny of the buggy and set pf harness.

We cannot see that there was any error in this prejudicial to the defendant. At the trial, evidence was given of the larceny of a gelding, and objection was made that it did not support the indictment for stealing a horse. There is no force in the objection.

Judgment affirmed.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1877–1878: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 11895–1896: 11907–1908: 11917–1918: 118772026peak 1877 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Matejousky115 N.W. 96 (S.D. 1908)
  2. State v. Hill65 Mo. 84 (1877)
  3. State v. Gooch29 S.W. 640 (Ark. 1895)
  4. State v. Collins163 P. 102 (Mont. 1917)
  5. State v. Buckles26 Kan. 237 (1881)
  6. People v. Butler2 Utah 504 (1880)

Most recent

  1. State v. Collins163 P. 102 (Mont. 1917)
  2. State v. Matejousky115 N.W. 96 (S.D. 1908)
  3. State v. Gooch29 S.W. 640 (Ark. 1895)
  4. State v. Buckles26 Kan. 237 (1881)
  5. People v. Butler2 Utah 504 (1880)
  6. State v. Hill65 Mo. 84 (1877)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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