State v. Vogel

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Vogel

64 Mo. App. 161, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 532

DecidedDecember 10, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Mo. App. 161 (State v. Vogel) 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. Vogel, 64 Mo. App. 161, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 532 (Mo. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Biggs, J.

The defendant was charged m the

information with selling and exposing to sale tickets in the “Original Little Lottery Company.” There was a trial by the court without a jury, which resulted in the conviction of the defendant. She has brought the case here by appeal.

[162]*162Informations In the form of the one we have here, have received the sanction of this court in several cases. State v. Hindman, 4 Mo. App. 582; State v. McWilliams, 7 Mo. App. 99; State v. Sellner, 17 Mo. App. 39. The objection was that such an information violated the rule that no more than one offense could be charged in the same count. The objection was disposed of under the authority of State v. Murphy, 47 Mo. 274.

Objections were made by defendant to the reading in evidence of the tickets, which the other evidence tended to show the defendant, had sold; and also certain printed circulars which were found at or near the place where the defendant got the tickets. We can not pass on these exceptions, for the reason that the tickets and circulars do not appear in the record. The bill of exceptions calls for them, but they were not copied into the transcript, it appearing from a memorandum of the clerk that they were not among the papers and that counsel had failed to produce them. Eor like reason we are precluded from passing on the sufficiency of the evidence. On the record before us we can only affirm the judgment.

With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment of the St. Louis court of criminal correction will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

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

Biggs, J.

The defendant was charged m the

information with selling and exposing to sale tickets in the “Original Little Lottery Company.” There was a trial by the court without a jury, which resulted in the conviction of the defendant. She has brought the case here by appeal.

[162]*162Informations In the form of the one we have here, have received the sanction of this court in several cases. State v. Hindman, 4 Mo. App. 582; State v. McWilliams, 7 Mo. App. 99; State v. Sellner, 17 Mo. App. 39. The objection was that such an information violated the rule that no more than one offense could be charged in the same count. The objection was disposed of under the authority of State v. Murphy, 47 Mo. 274.

Objections were made by defendant to the reading in evidence of the tickets, which the other evidence tended to show the defendant, had sold; and also certain printed circulars which were found at or near the place where the defendant got the tickets. We can not pass on these exceptions, for the reason that the tickets and circulars do not appear in the record. The bill of exceptions calls for them, but they were not copied into the transcript, it appearing from a memorandum of the clerk that they were not among the papers and that counsel had failed to produce them. Eor like reason we are precluded from passing on the sufficiency of the evidence. On the record before us we can only affirm the judgment.

With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment of the St. Louis court of criminal correction will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Mo. App. 161, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vogel-moctapp-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack