State v. Hartman

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Hartman

81 S.W. 1272, 182 Mo. 461, 1904 Mo. LEXIS 186

DecidedJune 14, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 81 S.W. 1272 (State v. Hartman) 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. Hartman, 81 S.W. 1272, 182 Mo. 461, 1904 Mo. LEXIS 186 (Mo. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

FOX, J.

The defendant in this cause was tried by the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, upon the charge of bribery. The trial resulted in his conviction, and punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary [462]*462for a term of six years. From this judgment defendant prosecuted hi? appeal to this court.

Appellant was jointly indicated with Julius Lehman. The evidence, instructions and proceedings in the case of Julius Lehman are substantially the same as the evidence, instructions and proceedings in this case, except that this appellant did not ash for a change of venue. With the above exception the record in this case is substantially the same as the record in the said case of The State v. Lehman, reported at page 424 of this volume.

Our conclusion in the Lehman case is announced, and adopting the views as expressed therein, as well as the conclusions reached, it results in the affirmance of the judgment in this cause, and it is so ordered.

All concur.

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

FOX, J.

The defendant in this cause was tried by the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, upon the charge of bribery. The trial resulted in his conviction, and punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary [462]*462for a term of six years. From this judgment defendant prosecuted hi? appeal to this court.

Appellant was jointly indicated with Julius Lehman. The evidence, instructions and proceedings in the case of Julius Lehman are substantially the same as the evidence, instructions and proceedings in this case, except that this appellant did not ash for a change of venue. With the above exception the record in this case is substantially the same as the record in the said case of The State v. Lehman, reported at page 424 of this volume.

Our conclusion in the Lehman case is announced, and adopting the views as expressed therein, as well as the conclusions reached, it results in the affirmance of the judgment in this cause, and it is so ordered.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.W. 1272, 182 Mo. 461, 1904 Mo. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hartman-mo-1904.