State v. Stubblefield

32 Mo. 563
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided July 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Bates, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The indictment is sufficient. It follows the language of the statute, and the different acts charged to have been committed by the defendants constitute but the one offence of disturbing religious worship.

The record shows that it was testified to the court that the jury had with them in their retirement a copy of the revised statutes, but the record does not show whether the court believed the testimony so given, or what was the truth as to the matter. The instructions were very favorable to the defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Judges Bay and Dryden concur.

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

State v. Stubblefield, 32 Mo. 563 (Mo. 1862).

32 Mo. 563 (State v. Stubblefield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Nash and Forgey
222 S.W. 396 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
State v. Stock
68 S.W. 579 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Jones v. State
7 L.R.A. 325 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1890)
State v. West
21 Mo. App. 309 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
State v. Hackfath
20 Mo. App. 614 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
State v. Goss
74 Mo. 592 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)
State v. Mohr
68 Mo. 303 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1878)
State v. James
63 Mo. 570 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1876)