State v. Bregard

Decided October 15, 1882

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1882-10-15

<p>1. Pleading, Criminal: keeping bawdy house. An indictment for keeping a bawdy house is well enough if it follows the language of the statute.</p> <p>2. -. Where a statute uses disjunctive language in defining an offense, an indictment under it may be drawn in the conjunctive.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1882-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1928

7 state decisions

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, J.

¶1The indictment charged that defendant on, etc., at, etc., “ did unlawfully set up and keep a common bawdy house.” The indictment is well enough, since it follows the language of the statute on which it is bottomed. R. S. 1879, p. 270, § 1550.

¶2The only particular in which the precise language of the statute is not followed, is in the substitution of the word and for the word or; but this is proper as recently *323decided by this court. State v. Pittman, ante, p. 56. The authorities cited by the State fully sustain the validity of the indictment. Therefore, judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.