The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-12-17
SUPREME COURT AND
THE BONNER CASE.

2il7 OF the statutes of 1899 az amended
formations shall be signed by the Pros
cutting Attorney and be verified by his
oath or by the oath Of some person COM
or be supported by the affidavit Of 81
| person. which shall be filed with the in
formation: the verifcation by the Prose-
curing Attorney may be upon Information
| This clearly did not justify an informa-
| ton upon the oath OF office" of the
flee is that which he takes when he en-
| tiers upon the office, and is the general
oath that he will support the Constitu-
| his duties. etc.
The section above quoted requires that
all informa tons. which means every in
of the Prosecuting Attorney. or by the
| oath of competent witness. The oath
required is msnifestly a specific oath. hav-
ing ,f a.d to the particular S information.
| ject. II Is settled by section 2479 of the
statutes. which prescribes the form Of in
ths set and Of The form Of oath
torney Tor e. F.. as the case may be-.
makes oath and says that the facts stated
in the foregoing information are true, ae1-.
cording to his best information and -
lief. {. VI.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, th1
Z. F. tstyie of omce.y
Prior to 1890 only misdemeanors could
De prosecuted ss on information. F'elonies
grand juries. The statutes quoted above
then had reference only to misCemeanors
and this was so by their express terms.
to the Constitution was adopted which
authorized prosecutions for feionies either
upon Indictment or information. This
amendment took effect at once. and was
In January. 1901. Charles Kyle was
prosecuted for robbery upon the informa-
teau County. for a robbery committed in
November Of the previous year. The in
formation was UPON the oath Of ohice''
OF the prosecutor, but was not sworn to BY
ness. The defendant objected that he
could not be presented by information BE-
the ade"tion of the amendment to the
Constitution, and also because the infor-
nation was not verified by the oath of
verified by the oath of some person com:
The court held 19s Mo-. $50 that tfA
only the procedure. was applicable and
that defendant could be prosecuted on In
formation.
The court further held that inasnuch N
the Statutes relating to information and
requiring their verihcation were by their
express terms limited to misdemeanors.
It hes eosS s Se il
mon law form upon the oath Of ONCE"
That this decision was proper one, 10
Nation sa aene None OF the le
introduced into our laws the anomaly that
petty offenses, misdemeanors. could be
sworn 10. while ShS any P4oaecusins Aafe1ney
could present any citizen Of the State for
felony without making oath. or having
anybody else ma make oath t. the char1 e.,
amended the laws relative to informations
and made the procedure uniform AZ to
s dSns s, and aena.ns section. Tss
and AS2. As amended. the provisions OF
the statutes related to all infernnatfons,
whatever the grade Of the crime charsca
1853 Missouri. 500. This was a felony. prose-
cuted upon information. Among other OBJ
1ections made. It was urged that the in.
by law. .-,.,.,.,
made upon the Supreme Court that this
a .Hfs5%s ns9 was s sgess 9a.n Of once
Such. however. is not the fact And It
is this mistake Of fact by the critics that
The court =, hayinf done ~ ct r..
One Hundred and sixty.eighth Missouri
formal narts and afidavit'.., The words
In quotation are the words OF the court.
So there was an afndavit -
western Reporter. volume g, page SIS. the
Information IL set out In full. and the am
dayit Of the prosecutor Is as follows:
.ns ,si s.: County e II 4. rs:
of Missouri, being duly sworn. accordinr q
,Rss the he
belief. X. G. SPENCE.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this. the
r H. EZZELL. Circuit Clerk.
SO Judge CAN'T very properly held: 1T
will be observed that the Information on
sfe osss the as @
upon his information and belief. which
the statute expressly permttA Gee. 2fS.
l Is s. 1882 amended Laws Of 1901 p.
The Prosecuting. Attorney Of stoddard
County followed the law Of 1901. and the
court said he was right. And so far the
sistent.
Then came the case Of state va Poll.
not set out in the report of the case. The
objection made IL that the information rs
not based upon the knowledse; informa-
ney. nor upon the knowledge. informstion
and belief Of any person. and that It
not supported by the amdavft Of any per-
The counsel for defendant in that case.
as well as the Prosecuting Attorney. ap-
parently was not aware OF the amend
cutting Attorney. of course Sc did not call
attention to it in the Supreme Court
he had then become aware OF y: fos
would have reversed his case. The de-
PENDANTS counsel did not suggest 1t. The
case was tried evidently on the theory Of
the Kyle case. The point as to the law OF
1901 was not raised by the parties. and
so, of course was not passed upon. he
says f 9s 5sdnT IT,,
amendment of 1901 docs not apply e;
felony cases There Is not q word ab0l0E
the amendment. 1t was not invoked by
counsel. and, therefore, not considered by
the court.
the first and only case. which has been
passed upon by the Supreme Court since
the amendment to the statutes in 1901 I'm
which there has been an Information for
point was made that under the amend
ment Of 1901 the Information must Be
worn to.
In the Jones case the information was
sworn to. and in the Pohl case the amend
ment was not invoked.
In the Bonner case the Information was
not sworn to. The attorney for the de.
'endant knew under the law OF 1871 II z
must be; he made the objection. pressed
/ upon the court. and the court decided
And the court did not reverse three II &
ts previous decisions. II did not reveE 8
he KYLE case, because the Kyle 1nfoI63x
Ion was filed before the amendment to
he statutes was enacteo. as old not re-
Information was under oath in exact con-
,ormifv with the amendment of 1901. It
,id nof reverse the Poh1 case, because
ented for consideration. FAIR PLAY.
HASN'T AGREED 4