State v. Tope

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tope

19 Mo. App. 273, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 217

DecidedNovember 9, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Mo. App. 273 (State v. Tope) 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. Tope, 19 Mo. App. 273, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J.

Defendant being prosecuted before a magistrate for obstructing a public road appealed to the circuit court of Worth county, where upon his motion the case was dismissed, having been instituted upon the mere affidavit of a private citizen without an information by the prosecuting attorney. The court below taxed the costs against the county of Worth, and overruling a motion to re-tax, appellant brings the case here. The contest here is over the costs. The appellant having failed to file brief, statement, or assignment of errors the judgment will be affirmed. Counsel for respondent asserts his willingness to waive the filing of briefs, or assignment of error, etc., but this cannot be done, as we so expressly ruled in Dowling et al. v. Corrigan, at last term.

All concur.

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

Ellison, J.

Defendant being prosecuted before a magistrate for obstructing a public road appealed to the circuit court of Worth county, where upon his motion the case was dismissed, having been instituted upon the mere affidavit of a private citizen without an information by the prosecuting attorney. The court below taxed the costs against the county of Worth, and overruling a motion to re-tax, appellant brings the case here. The contest here is over the costs. The appellant having failed to file brief, statement, or assignment of errors the judgment will be affirmed. Counsel for respondent asserts his willingness to waive the filing of briefs, or assignment of error, etc., but this cannot be done, as we so expressly ruled in Dowling et al. v. Corrigan, at last term.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Mo. App. 273, 1885 Mo. App. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tope-moctapp-1885.