Case Name: THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOHN H. KELLY, Appellant
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1907-04-01
Citations: 123 Mo. App. 680
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOHN H. KELLY, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOHN H. KELLY, Appellant.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
April 1, 1907.
1. Criminal Law: Venue: Proof of. Tlie failure to prove Venue as charged is fatal to a conviction.
2. -: Concealed Weapons: Threats: Defense; Evidence. On the evidence it appears that the defense of threats upon the defendant’s life was made out.
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. WannemaJcer, Judge.
Reversed.
Barnett é Barnett for appellant.
(1) The court erred in refusing the peremptory instruction asked by the defendant for the further reason that the undisputed evidence in this case shows that the defendant had been threatened prior to the time of the alleged carrying said weapon by one Hinton; that Hinton had threatened to shoot him, and Hinton admitted that he had previous.to the time, that he said he was hunting the defendant, threatened to shoot him. R. S. 1899, sec. 1863. (2) The conviction cannot be sustained in this case for the reason that the venue is no where shown. State v. McGrath, 73 Mr. 181; State y. Kindrick, 21 Mo. App. 507; State y. Jackson, 86 Mo. 18; State y. Furrester, 63 Mo. App. 530; State v. Prather, 41 Mo. App. 451; State y. Miller, 71 Mo. 89; State y. McGinnis, 74 Mo. 245; State y. Hughes, 71 Mo. 633; State y. Bobb, 76 Mo. 548; State v. Wheeler, 79 Mo. 366; State y. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; State y. Young, 99 Mo. 284.
George James for respondent.
No brief filed.

Opinion:
ELLISON, J.
The defendant was convicted of the' offense of carrying concealed weapons on his person in Putnam county.
The record presented here fails to show that the State made any proof of venue and that is fatal to the conviction. [State v. McGrath, 73 Mo. 181; State v. Kindrick, 21 Mo. App. 507.]
So it likewise appears, without contradiction, that defendant's life was threatened repeatedly and to different persons. It was likewise shown that defendant heard of these threats. The evidence conclusively shows that there was a high state of ill-feeling between defendant and the party threatening him. It seems that a defense was made out. [State v. Venable, 117 Mo. App. 501; State v. Casto, 119 Mo. App. 265.]
The judgment is reversed.
All concur.