State v. Ellis

24 S.W. 1017, 119 Mo. 437, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 13
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 31, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 S.W. 1017 (State v. Ellis) 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. Ellis, 24 S.W. 1017, 119 Mo. 437, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 13 (Mo. 1894).

Opinion

Bukgess, J.

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the circuit court of New Madrid county, and his punishment fixed at two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The indictment, leaving out the formal parts, is as follows:

“The grand jurors for the state of Missouri for the body of New Madrid county, impaneled, charged and sworn upon their oaths present, that on or about March 1, 1893, one P. W. Ellis», at the county and state aforesaid, from one J. J. Williams, then and there being, did certain neat cattle, to wit, two heifers, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away ■ against the peace and dignity of the state.”

Defendant filed his motion to quash the indictment upon the ground that it did not allege that J. J. Williams was the owner, or in possession of the property alleged to have been stolen, which was overruled, and he excepted. After his conviction he filed his motion in arrest for the same grounds which were assigned in the motion to quash. This motion was also overruled and he saved his exceptions, and prosecuted his appeal to this court. No brief has been filed on behalf of the defendant.

The indictment is fatally defective in that it does not aver the ownership of the property. It should have averred after describing the cattle, “of the property of one J. J. Williams, then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take and carry away.” 2 Bishop’s Cr. Proc., sec. 697; Kelley’s Cr. Law and Prac., sec. 649; 2 East’s P. C., 651, 778.

The indictment nowhere avers who was thé owner of the property, except inférentially. The motion in arrest should have been sustained. The judgment will be reversed and cause remanded.

All of this division concur.

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

Related

DeLuca v. State
465 S.W.2d 609 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)
State v. Cantrell
403 S.W.2d 647 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1966)
State v. Lundry
233 S.W.2d 734 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1950)
State v. Shroyer
160 P.2d 444 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1945)
State v. Jensen
30 P.2d 203 (Utah Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 S.W. 1017, 119 Mo. 437, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ellis-mo-1894.