*1 103 v. Pearson. pp. p. 229-30-31, sec. Contracts, Elliott on 3 95; cited. upon rulings appellate kindred courts our point, directly questions, in line are while not Ridge, authorities. v. [Neil in above the law as declared Mo. Co., 214 220 Porter v. Construction 233-257; Mo. Haag Bros. 348; Reinert Ward, v. l. c. City 206 Whitmer, v. S. W. Const. Co. Joplin App. Maryville 263-4; l. ex rel. Cox, c. App. City Marionville 717, 722; Freeman, App. Mo. 397.] Henson, to use v. appear from record before us,

It does not damage any liable to sustain loss or are defendants opinion, judgment In enforced. our below be should by overruling justice be subserved, of. will best ends ’ contention. defendants heretofore reached, In view Y. conclusions as to relator defend- Mozley, hereby affirmed. White ants, is foregoing opinion Railey, hereby court. All . PEARSON, THE STATE ISAAC in Error. Two, May 26, 1921. Plea of 1. CRIMINAL LAW: Confesses Facts In- Stated in Appeal plea or formation: Error. A Writ in a criminal confesses the of the facts stated in informa- tion involve a and does of a violation of the upon which the information is based informa- correctly the commission of that offense. And writ, may, by appeal error, such a 'COURT OF MISSOURI, Voting: 2. -: Fraudulent Residence: Information. An informa- tion in a criminal case based on Section holding which after on a of an election *2 township county setting State, in a certain in a certain in this out the different offices for which the election held and that polling township precinct county falsely, applied etc. for and received and cast a election, having ballot at said thus: the offense “without therein, to vote in this That he to-wit: said Isaac Pearson was not then and there a resident voter precinct said said said County, Missouri, then and there a Pemiscot for year period election, one before the date said all of which knew,” the said Isaac Pearson then and there well is insufficient charge because it fails that defendant was an voter either in not resided in the State for the failing for the. time or in to reside in the provided by Section 2 of vote Article 8 of the Constitution and Section Statutes Revised Sterling Writ of Error to Pemiscot Court.—lion. Circuit McCarty, Judge. H. discharged.

Reversed and defendant Shepard plaintiff. G. for C.

(.1) necessary for defendant to Virginia Township, ip legal precinct, Missouri, order to be a said but it sufficient if he resided within Town- and said information to state that he did Virginia Township, not reside within fails to state against the laws of the Missouri, State nullity entered to said is a discharged. defendant should be Art. Mo. Const.; (2) It was not de- fendant to have within resided Mis- year souri, before date of said but it was sufficient if he election, had resided within county sixty days said before said if he election, had re- APRIL TERM, y. Pearson. year next within of Missouri whole the State sided the in- no election. There before said within that defendant had formation the date before resided within no had election, and days County sixty before next fatally no crime states defective and (3) Missouri. of the State of laws party must Informations stating voting illegal, making the facts state pleader sufficient. State the conclusion Judd, (4) A form

Hilderle, 203 Mo. 574. informations Whalen, in the case nature found State v. this could be scantily worded information degree requirements not in the meet the *3 case. of Whalen Attorney-General, and Barrett, Albert

Jesse W. Attorney-General, respondent. Assistant presents in error his brief the sole insufficiency question of the information. We is insufficient, and fails to that the concede charge any 3224, under either 3209 or R. offense S. 8, Const.; plaintiff 4748, Art. Mo. R. S. 1919, 1919. Sec. of in brief in error. cited C. On filed November WHITE, County, Court in the Circuit defendant charged illegal voting day second November, the On of Nov seventeenth statement. court, ^ the same term of the defend emkerj person appeared arraignment, ant waived charged, plead guilty to the information as and his years imprisonment punishment fixed at two penitentiary. Afterwards writ of error was sued out by the defendant. court By

I. his confessed of the facts ' MISSOURI, COURT OF of violation involve did not informa piea correctly charged commission

that crime. He could appeal writ of the information Repp Kelley, [State v. error. ley, Mo. l. c. 339.] charged

II. The information the- November, an 1920, while held Township, State Missouri (setting out different offices, national, state and being for which the election was information: held), Necessa^tXng: polling precinct Virginia Township Allegations. Comity, falsely applied

of Pemiscot for and received a ballot, and cast said ballot at said election. Then the information states the offense thus:

“Without to vote therein, in this, to-wit: That he the Isaac Pearson was not then a resident there in said election county, then there

for a before the date of said election, all of Isaac Pearson then and there well knew.”

Apparently attempts the information violation of Section in knowingly at an voted quali- when was not *4 voter. fied Section Article the 8, of Missouri Consti- tution the defines residence a first, he voter; shall have resided the in State for year, county, city in the town where he offers to sixty days, immediately vote, preceding the requires election. Section R. that a voter year, shall reside the in State one in the days immediately sixty preceding the election, “and only in shall vote or, resides, v. Cruts. therein city, election district then in if in town or he resides.” which not It will be noticed that resident of not a that Pearson was not resi- he was that bnt next before the required County. to be is dent A voter sixty days. It county for more than resident of the says “in time at the resident that he was precinct further Township.” The require live that he shall statute does in the town- that he shall vote he voted, which fails to The information in which he resides. voter either that defendant was time, to or in for the The in- he to vote. in the formation, therefore, no offense. reversed the defendant dis- charged. Bailey Mosley, foregoing White, opinion of the court. All as the Appellant. v. RAINEY

THE CRUTS, STATE May Two, TO for Less Offense. ASSAULT WITH INTENT KILL: Instruction against by proceeded under the defendant was Where feloniously 1919, charging with him Section shooting powder pistol another loaded with ball with a sup- for the State kill murder and the evidence intent him ported tended to show while the evidence for solely self-defense, error it acted instructing theory jury self-defense, give asked an instruction also to refuse