TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Findley

The State v. Findley

State v. Findley, 77 Mo. 338 (1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1883
Judges
Norton
Citations
77 Mo. 338
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
An Indictment for Selling Liquor, unlawfully, charged the selling to have been done “ on or about the months of January, February and March.” Held, that it was not open to the objection that it charged several offenses in one count, time not being of the essence of the offense.
Summary
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Hon. J. R. "Woodside, Judge.

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

Opinion of the Court — Norton

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

Norton, J.

At the April term, 1879, of the Howell county circuit court defendant was indicted for seliingintoxicatingliquors as a druggist in less quantities than one gallon. *339 The indictment charges the selling to have been done “on or about the months of January, February and March, 1879.” To this indictment a demurrer was interposed by defendant, which was sustained, and from this action of the court the State has appealed. The only objection presented by the demurrer is, that the indictment charged several offenses in one count, in this, that it charged the selling to have been done on or about the months of January, February and March.

Under the rulings of this court in the cases of Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 9 ; State v. Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425 ; State v. Myers, 20 Mo. 411 ; State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236 , the point raised by the demurrer is not well taken, and the action of the court in sustaining it was erroneous. As time is not the essence of the offense, it is stated with sufficient certainty. Had the indictment charged the offense to have been committed on the first day of January, the State, on the trial, would have been permitted to show that it was committed on any other day than that alleged in the indictment, provided it was within twelve months before the indictment was found. R. S., § 1821; State v. Magrath, 19 Mo. 678 ; State v. Stumbo, 26 Mo. 306 ; State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370 . Judgment reversed and cause remanded, in which all concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1884–1885: 11888–1889: 11890–1891: 11892–1893: 11894–1895: 11906–1907: 11908–1909: 218842026peak 1908 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rinker v. United States151 F. 755 (8th Cir. 1907)
  2. State v. Bennett102 Mo. 356 (1890)
  3. State v. Myrberg105 P. 622 (Wash. 1909)
  4. State v. Hughes82 Mo. 86 (1884)
  5. State v. Sweeney56 Mo. App. 409 (1894)
  6. State v. Healy50 Mo. App. 243 (1892) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. State v. Myrberg105 P. 622 (Wash. 1909)
  2. State v. Randolph123 S.W. 60 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
  3. Rinker v. United States151 F. 755 (8th Cir. 1907)
  4. State v. Sweeney56 Mo. App. 409 (1894)
  5. State v. Healy50 Mo. App. 243 (1892) · Dissent
  6. State v. Bennett102 Mo. 356 (1890)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Fletcher, 18 Mo. 425 (1853) 16
State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236 (1860) 15
State v. Stumbo, 26 Mo. 306 (1858) 14
State v. Magrath, 19 Mo. 678 (1854) 13
State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370 (1866) 11
State v. Mccracken, 20 Mo. 411 (1855) 4

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