State v. Davidson

69 Mo. 509
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 69 Mo. 509 (State v. Davidson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Davidson, 69 Mo. 509 (Mo. 1879).

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of one William Haggerty, and on trial had, was found guilty of the first degree of that offense, and sentenced accordingly. There is no bill of exceptions preserved, so that our examination is necessarily confined to the record proper. No objection can be urged against the indictment, as it is in usual form, and the record entries as to the presence of the defendant are full and complete. Nor do we discover any error in respect of the election of the special judge, or to the progress of the trial after such election.

An application for a change of venue was made by the prisoner, on account of the alleged prejudice of the judge of the court, whereupon, an election being held in con[510]*510formity to the statute, O. W. Rogers was duly elected special judge, and took the oath required by law. The cause was then continued upon the prisoner’s application to the next term, when the trial, with the above stated result, took place ; the special judge elected the preceding term still continuing to preside. There was no error in this. The 2nd section of the act of 1877, (Sess. Acts 1877, p. 357,) clothes the special judge, pro hac vice, with “all the powers” possessed by the regular judge of the court, and expressly provides for the continuance of those powers until “the conclusion of the trial of said cause.” This being the case, it matters not that the cause was continued to a subsequent term; thepowers and duties of the special judge suffered thereby no abatement whatsoever, he still remained judge of that court, in that case, until the final determination thereof. Perceiving no error in the record, it only remains to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.

All concur, except Judge Napton, absent.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State ex rel. American National Bank v. Williams
117 S.W. 618 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Patterson v. Yancey
71 S.W. 845 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1903)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Preston
66 P. 1050 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
State ex rel. Renfro v. Wear
129 Mo. 621 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
State v. Moberly
26 S.W. 364 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
State ex rel. Sansone v. Wofford
20 S.W. 236 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Naffzieger v. Reed
98 Mo. 87 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Powers v. State
5 S.W. 153 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 Mo. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davidson-mo-1879.