(DOWNLOAD) "City University City v. Jim Joe Redwine" by St. Louis District Missouri Court of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: City University City v. Jim Joe Redwine
- Author : St. Louis District Missouri Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 17, 1964
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
This is an appeal from a judgment of Division No. 3 of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County entered upon verdicts of a jury
finding defendant guilty of violations of the provisions of an ordinance of University City. The prosecution originated in
the Municipal Court of University City upon the filing therein of five separate informations charging defendant with separate
offenses under said ordinance. These infractions of the law were all alleged to have occurred during fights between two groups
of young men on August 10, 1961, in Heman Park in University City. Defendant was convicted in the city court on all five charges,
and in due time appealed to the circuit court. The cases came on for trial in the circuit court on February 22nd, 1962, and
on said date the trial court, over defendant's objection, entered an order consolidating for trial all the above mentioned
cases. Said causes are designated in the record as Nos. 243,470, a charge of peace disturbance; No. 243,493, a charge of engaging
in an affray; No. 243,494, a charge of common assault; No. 243,495, a charge of peace disturbance; and No. 243,496, a charge
of engaging in an affray. The trial resulted in verdicts finding defendant guilty in causes Nos. 243,493, 243,494 and 243,496,
and acquittals in causes Nos. 243,470 and 243,495. The court, thereafter, in accordance with said verdicts sentenced defendant
"to serve a term of thirty (30) days in the city jail of University City, Missouri, in cause No. 243,493, a term of ninety
(90) days in the city jail of University City, Missouri, in cause No. 243,494, and a term of thirty (30) days in the city
jail of University City, Missouri, in cause No. 243,494. Respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that appellant's brief does not comply with the provisions of Rule
83.05 The brief does not contain any of the facts developed at the trial. There are twelve assignments of error under "points
and authorities" and numerous abstract statements of law over which there is, and could be, no dispute. For the most part
the assignments of errors are not supported by authorities, and practically all of those cited are not in point. The "Argument"
is substantially a restatement of the propositions advanced under "points and authorities". The instructions attacked are
not set forth in full in the argument portion of the brief. The brief clearly does not comply with the rules, and were it
not for the fact that defendant's liberty is involved, we would dismiss the appeal. For that reason the motion to dismiss
the appeal will be overruled. Since there is no statement in appellant's brief of facts which is necessary to be considered
by the court in passing upon the assignments of error, we will state briefly the facts as they appear from the record. They
are as follows: