TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Berry

State of Missouri v. H. S. Berry

State v. Berry, 62 Mo. 595 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1876
Judges
Wagner
Citations
62 Mo. 595
Headnotes
1. Practice, criminal — Indictment—Motion to quash — Objections, how stated. — A motion to quash, or demurrer to, an indictment, shall distinctly specify the grounds of objection, or it must be disregarded, and no reason not specified shall be held to sustain such motion or demurrer. (Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 24.) A motion to quash an indictment, which only stated, that no crime against the law of the State was charged, and that the indictment did not state facts which authorized the court to put the defendant upon trial, cannot be sustained.
Summary
Appeal from Clinton County Circuit Court. The three causes attempted to be set up by the defendant, as a cause-for quashing the indictment, are not sufficient, for the reason that they do not distinctly specify the grounds of objection to the indictment. The specific defect must be pointed out. (Wagn. Stat., 1090, §24; State vs. Van Houten, 37 Mo., 357 ; State vs. Marshall, 47 Mo., 378.)

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

Opinion of the Court — Wagner

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

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted for exercising the trade or business of a public auctioneer without license.

A motion to quash was sustained to the indictment, and the causes set forth in the motion merely stated in general' language, that no crime against the laws of the State was charged, and that the indictment did not state facts which authorized the court to put the defendant upon trial. The statute provides that a'demurrer to, or a motion to quash, an indictment, shall distinctly specify the grounds of objection to the indictment, unless it does so it shall be disregarded, nor should any reason be held to sustain such demurrer or motion not specified therein. (Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 24.) The causes assigned for quashing were too general and pointed out no specific objection. They should therefore have been disregarded.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded. The other judges concur, except Judge Tories, who is absent.

How later courts describe this case

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

1876–1877: 11882–1883: 11904–1905: 118762026peak 1876 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Weeks77 Mo. 496 (1883)
  2. State v. Brown79 S.W. 1111 (Mo. 1904)
  3. State v. Poston63 Mo. 521 (1876)

Most recent

  1. State v. Brown79 S.W. 1111 (Mo. 1904)
  2. State v. Weeks77 Mo. 496 (1883)
  3. State v. Poston63 Mo. 521 (1876)

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