Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

182 Mo. 13

State v. Sheridan

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided May 31, 1904

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1904-05-31

Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. O’Neill Rya/n, Judge. Defendants’ demurrer to the paper entitled an information should have been sustained. Said paper is not verified; and recites that it is made solely and only on the official oath of the circuit attorney. Laws 1901, p. 138; R. S. 1899, sees. 2477, 2479; State v. Jones, 168 Mo. 400; State v. Bonner, 178 Mo. 424; State v. Hayward, 83 Mo. 299.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1910

3 state decisions

Relies on State v. Brown · State v. Schnettler · State v. Lewis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1904-05-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BUBGESS, J.

¶1The defendants are charged with bribery. They were proceeded against on an information of the circuit attorney. The information was not verified by the oath of the circuit attorney, or the oath of any person competent to testify as a witness in the case, nor was it supported by the affidavit of any such person.

¶2At the beginning of the trial, defendants moved to quash the information, alleging among other grounds, that the information was not verified by the circuit attorney, or any- other person, nor supported by the affidavit of any person competent to testify as a witness. The motion to quash was overruled and defendants at the time preserved their exceptions.

¶3The same question was again brought to the attention of counsel and the court at the conclusion of the trial by motion in arrest. This was overruled and an exception noted to the action of the court in overruling the same.

¶4The case of State v. Brown, 181 Mo. 192; State v. Schnettler, 181 Mo. 173, and State v. Collins, 181 Mo. 235, in so far as the information in this case is concerned, are decisive of this, and the information is invalid.

¶5There are other points presented by defendants for consideration, but they have not been argued by the Attorney-General, by brief or otherwise, and as the judgment must be reversed because of the invalidity of the information we have not thought it necessary to discuss them.

¶6The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.
/182/mo/13 · .json · Public domain