State v. Hall

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hall

138 S.W. 45, 158 Mo. App. 123, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 455

DecidedJune 6, 1911

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.W. 45 (State v. Hall) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Hall, 138 S.W. 45, 158 Mo. App. 123, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 455 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

CAULFIELD, J.

(after stating the facts). — It was essential to the maintenance of the prosecution, as framed; that the state prove the defendants were licensed dramshop keepers. [Bachman v. Brown, 57 Mo. App. 68; State v. Reppetto, 66 Mo. App. 251.] The record of the county court granting the license to the defendants was primary evidence that the license was granted, that is, authorized to be issued, but not that it was issued. [State v Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592, 85 S. W. 613.] The license was the best evidence of -such issuance. [State v. Sherman, 137 Mo. App. 70, 119 S. W. 479.] The record or memorandum kept ‘by the county clerk showing such issuance was but secondary evidence. [State v. Mulloy, 111 Mo. App. 679, 86 S. W. 569; State v. Reppetto, 66 Mo. App. 251; State v. Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592, 85 S. W. 613.] And the testimony of witnesses, so far as it tended to prove that fact, was in the same class. [State v. Barnett, supra.] Before any of this secondary evidence was admissible, it was necessary to lay a foundation for its introduction by showing that the defendants had been notified to produce the license and had failed to do so. Its admission Avithout such foundation being laid was reversible error. [State v. Kurtz, 64 Mo. App. 123; State v. Reppetto, supra; State v. Barnett, supra; State v. Mulloy, supra; State v. Sherman, supra.]

Under the decisions the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and.Nortoni, J,, concur.

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

CAULFIELD, J.

(after stating the facts). — It was essential to the maintenance of the prosecution, as framed; that the state prove the defendants were licensed dramshop keepers. [Bachman v. Brown, 57 Mo. App. 68; State v. Reppetto, 66 Mo. App. 251.] The record of the county court granting the license to the defendants was primary evidence that the license was granted, that is, authorized to be issued, but not that it was issued. [State v Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592, 85 S. W. 613.] The license was the best evidence of -such issuance. [State v. Sherman, 137 Mo. App. 70, 119 S. W. 479.] The record or memorandum kept ‘by the county clerk showing such issuance was but secondary evidence. [State v. Mulloy, 111 Mo. App. 679, 86 S. W. 569; State v. Reppetto, 66 Mo. App. 251; State v. Barnett, 110 Mo. App. 592, 85 S. W. 613.] And the testimony of witnesses, so far as it tended to prove that fact, was in the same class. [State v. Barnett, supra.] Before any of this secondary evidence was admissible, it was necessary to lay a foundation for its introduction by showing that the defendants had been notified to produce the license and had failed to do so. Its admission Avithout such foundation being laid was reversible error. [State v. Kurtz, 64 Mo. App. 123; State v. Reppetto, supra; State v. Barnett, supra; State v. Mulloy, supra; State v. Sherman, supra.]

Under the decisions the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded. It is so ordered.

Reynolds, P. J., and.Nortoni, J,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.W. 45, 158 Mo. App. 123, 1911 Mo. App. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-moctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack