Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Mo. 235

Thomas v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1846

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1846-07-15

That the Circuit Court erred in refusing to grant the rule upon the Justice, upon the appliea* tfon of Thomas; — the affidavit showed the Justice had not made a correct return, and the only way to correct it was by rule. The errors in the record of the Justice are set out in the motion, and sworn to by the appellant. It is also contended that the Court ought to have permitted tba appellant to file a new bond and affidavit after the Court refused the rule upon the Justice.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1893

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1846-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McBride, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This was a prosecution commenced before a Justice of the Peace in Chariton County, on the 8th October, 1844, against the defendant for an assault and battery, committed on the person of one Humphrey Adams. A trial was had on the 10th of the month before a jury, when the defendant was found guilty, and a fine of $50 was assessed against him, on which the Justice rendered judgment. On the same day the defendant asked for an appeal to the Circuit Court, and tendered his bond, which being adjudged insufficient by the Justice, was rejected. On the next day the defendant tendered another bond, which being approved of by the Justice, an appeal was granted to the Circuit Court.

¶3In the Circuit Court, at the May Term, 1845, the Circuit Attorney filed his motion for an affirmance of the judgment of the Justice, for th® reason (among others,) “ because the appeal was not taken and perfected on the day of the rendition of the judgment by the Justice.”

¶4Before a disposition of the motion, the defendant filed an affidavit and motion, praying for a rule against the Justice, to show cause why he should not amend his return, in conformity with the facts, as they occurred on the trial. The statement in the affidavit is, that on the day of th® trial before the Justice, and after the rejection of the first recognizance bond offered by the defendant, the Justice informed him, that all further proceedings in the cause would be suspended until the next day.

¶5The Circuit Court overruled the defendant’s motion for a rule against the Justice, and sustained the motion of the Circuit Attorney for an affirmance of the judgment; — thereupon the defendant appealed to this Court.

¶6The defendant’s attorney relies upon the right of the defendant to give his appeal bond on the day after the trial, or, to perfect his appeal by giving his bond, in the Circuit Court.

¶7*237These two questions have been considered and determined by this Court in the case of Cox vs. The State, 9 Mo. R. 181.

¶8The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

/10/mo/235 · .json · Public domain