Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Mo. 283

State v. Dodson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1880

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1880-10-15

— The case was tried before J. B. Upton, Esq., sitting as Special Judge. Conviction of embezzlement of property of one Stoughton. The bill of exceptions was filed the day after the appeal was allowed. 1. The indictment contains no direct averment that defendant was the agent of Stoughton. 2. The petition for change of venue from the regular judge was insufficient, because not supported by the affidavits of two or more reputable persons.

Relies on State v. Knight · State v. Meyers

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1880-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 1947 · most notably Stearns v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. (1887), Coffey v. City of Carthage (1906)

25 state decisions

701880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sherwood, C. J.

¶1I. The statute expressly gives a defendant in criminal, as well as in civil cases, the entire term wherein to file his bill of exceptions, so that it makes no difference if the affidavit, for the appeal is filed previously or subsequently to the tiling of the bill of exceptions.

¶2II. If there was any irregularity in the affidavit for taking the cause from the regular judge, bj7 reason of such affidavit lacking the oath of two or more reputable persons, this did not oust the jurisdiction of the special judge. Any objections on the score of irregularity should have been taken at the time, and cannot be listened to here. State v. Knight, 61 Mo. 373.

¶3III. The indictment, which was for embezzling three horses, was framed under the first clause of section 35, page 458,1 Wagner’s Statutes. The agency of the defendant is -distinctly set forth. The indictment is sufficient. State v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 266.

¶4IV. As the indictment charged the embezzlement of the horses, any evidence respecting the embezzlement of the proceeds of the horses, was clearly inadmissible, and any instructions based upon such evideuce, erroneous. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.
/72/mo/283 · .json · Public domain