State v. Thruston

83 Mo. 271
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1884·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Martin, C.

The defendant was indicted for selling-liquor without license. In the record, it is recited that the defendant filed a petition to quash the indictment, and that the same was by consent of the parties submitted to the court, and that the court, after hearing and understanding the same, sustained it, and thereupon discharged the defendant. As this motion is not preserved in the record, by bill of exceptions, the reasons urged in it for quashing the indictment do not appear, and ■consequently the action of the lower court in sustaining it cannot be reviewed by this court on appeal or writ of ■error. State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313. Accordingly the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

State v. Thruston, 83 Mo. 271 (Mo. 1884).

83 Mo. 271 (State v. Thruston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. McKay
125 S.W. 478 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
State v. Finley
91 S.W. 942 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
State v. Tooker
87 S.W. 487 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
State v. Campbell
43 S.W. 167 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
State v. Fraker
38 S.W. 909 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
City of Columbia v. Dorsey
63 Mo. App. 626 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
State v. Henderson
109 Mo. 292 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
State v. Vincent
91 Mo. 662 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1887)