City of Cassville v. Jimerson
This text of 75 Mo. App. 426 (City of Cassville v. Jimerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendant was charged up on the complaint of one M. R. Rayless with the violation of an ordinance of the plaintiff, a city of the f ourth class. He was convicted before the mayor of the city, and on appeal in the circuit court the proceeding was dismissed on motion of defendant upon the alleged ground that the prosecuting witness had no personal knowledge of the commission of the alleged offense. ,. On the hearing of the motion the prosecuting witness testified that he had no personal knowledge of the facts; that he was not present when the offense was committed, and that his affidavit was based upon information derived from others. The testimony was admitted against the objection of the plaintiff. The court sustained the motion, discharged the defendant, and rendered a judgment for costs in his favor. The plaintiff has appealed.
[429]*429
We think it clear that the circuit court misconceived the meaning or scope of the statute. Its judgment dismissing the cause will therefore be reversed and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 Mo. App. 426, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-cassville-v-jimerson-moctapp-1898.