State v. Clarke

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Clarke

17 N.W. 344, 31 Minn. 207, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 52

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 12, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 N.W. 344 (State v. Clarke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Clarke, 17 N.W. 344, 31 Minn. 207, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 52 (Mich. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

Chapter 134, Laws 1881, provides that “any person who shall use, in reference to and in the presence of another, * * * abusive or obscene language, intended or naturally tending to provoke an assault, or any breach of the peace, shall be punished,” etc. The complaint under this statute should state the name of the person in reference to and in whose presence the language was .used, if the name be known; and if it be unknown, it is at least necessary to so allege. This is necessary to the identification of the of-fence, not only so as to inform the defendant of the particular thing with which he is charged, so that he may be enabled to prepare his defence, but also that he may conveniently avail himself of an acquittal or conviction in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same matter. State v. Schmail, 25 Minn. 368.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mitchell, J.

Chapter 134, Laws 1881, provides that “any person who shall use, in reference to and in the presence of another, * * * abusive or obscene language, intended or naturally tending to provoke an assault, or any breach of the peace, shall be punished,” etc. The complaint under this statute should state the name of the person in reference to and in whose presence the language was .used, if the name be known; and if it be unknown, it is at least necessary to so allege. This is necessary to the identification of the of-fence, not only so as to inform the defendant of the particular thing with which he is charged, so that he may be enabled to prepare his defence, but also that he may conveniently avail himself of an acquittal or conviction in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same matter. State v. Schmail, 25 Minn. 368.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.W. 344, 31 Minn. 207, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clarke-minn-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack