State v. Hogan

Decided January 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1861-01-15

<p>t. Where the words endorsed on an indictment “a true bill-, foreman of the jury” are printed, and the name of the foreman was appended to the words descriptive of his office, instead of preceding them, the indictment should not be qhashed.</p> <p>2. Nor is it sufficient cause for quashing an indictment that the record does not show that the bill was filed, nor on what day it was filed.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1906

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Napton, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2There was a motion to quash this indictment because in the endorsement on it the words “a true bill: --, foreman of the jury,” were printed, and the name of the fore*343man of the grand jury, instead of preceding the words descriptive of his office, was appended to them. There tvas also an objection that the record did not show that the bill was filed, or on what day it was filed. The motion to quash quash was overruled and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Judge Ewing concurs. Judge Scott absent.