State v. Elmer, 267 S.W. 934; State v. Smith. 261 S.W. 96; State v. Hurnden, 2 S.W.2d 145; State v. Pinto, 312 Mo. 99; State v. Hazelhorst, 296 S.W. 139. (2) The search warrant issued by the justice of the peace was illegal and void because the evidence shows that the applicant for the search warrant, who swore to the application, had no personal knowledge of the evidence therein set out and there was none introduced before the justice from which he could find proper cause for the search warrant. State v. Locke, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellmen, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (3) The court erred in submitting this case to the jury on two counts in the information which charged the defendant with two distinct felonies. The State should have been required to elect upon which count it would proceed to prosecute the defendant, whether requested by the defendant or not. State v. Preslar, 290 S.W. 42; State v. Burrell, 289 Mo. 678; State v. Guye, 299 Mo. 366; State v. Link, 286 S.W. 12.
79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 58 (1952). We held in State v. Cockrum, Mo.Sup., 278 S.W. 700, that a son had no standing to complain of a search of his father's farm which resulted in the seizure of certain illegal whiskey and instrumentalities for making such which were owned by the son. We have considered the case of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 78 A.L.R.2d 233, which held, under the circumstances there present, that a guest had standing to object to an illegal search.
(1) The court should not have permitted the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury to tell it that appellant had sexual relations with prosecutrix at times before and after that charged and for which he was being tried. State v. Brown, 247 Mo. 715, 153 S.W. 1027; State v. Davis, 190 S.W. 297, 52 C.J. 1196-97; State v. Schenk, 238 Mo. 429, 142 S.W. 263; State v. Miller, 263 Mo. 326, 172 S.W. 385; State v. Caldwell, 311 Mo. 534, 278 S.W. 700. (2) The state should not have been permitted to introduce incompetent and irrelevant matters in evidence, prejudicial to the rights of appellant. State v. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 S.W. l.c. 448; Constitution of Missouri, Sec. 18 (a) Art. 1; State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 229, 135 S.W. 4. (3) "It is the duty of the prosecuting attorney to be fair and impartial in presenting the evidence for the prosecution".
(3) The court erred in sustaining the objections to questions concerning and proof of previous sexual acts of prosecutrix. State v. Duffey, 31 S.W. 101, 128 Mo. 849; State v. Shearon, 183 S.W. 293; State v. Williams, 87 S.W.2d 184, 337 Mo. 884; State v. Guye, 252 S.W. 955, 299 Mo. 348; State v. Smith, 289 S.W. 590, 67 A.L.R. 140; State v. Caldwell, 278 S.W. 700, 311 Mo. 534; State v. Loness, 238 S.W. 112. (4) The court erred in refusing to strike out and withdraw from the consideration of the jury all of the testimony of Joseph E. Gorman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and witness for State. Canons of Ethics, Amer. Bar Assn., sec. 19, Rule 35, Sup. Ct.; State v. White, 99 S.W.2d 75, 339 Mo. 1019; State v. Nicholson, 7 S.W.2d 379; State v. Huff, 61 S.W. 909, 161 Mo. 459; State v. Jones, 268 S.W. 83, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 864; State v. Wilkins, 100 S.W.2d 895. (5) The court erroneously allowed witness Judge Ray G. Cowan to testify in rebuttal to highly incompetent, immaterial and prejudicial matter of and concerning why the Addington and Marriott girls (and other girls) were placed in the House of Good Shepherd, and the court erroneously refused to strike out all of this testimony from the record and from the consideration of the jury. 4 C.J., sec. 2953, p. 972; 22 C.J., secs. 10, 89, 90, 157, 731, pp. 66, 158, 163, 192, 634-637; State
This court will not interfere with the verdict where there is substantial evidence. State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. White, 289 S.W. 953; State v. Loftis, 292 S.W. 29. (2) The verdict was within the statute and responsive to the charge in the indictment. BLAIR, J.
Evidence. Let it be said, however, that the facts and circumstances developed by the State at the trial are abundantly sufficient, in every particular, to support the verdict in this case. For rulings to the same effect, based on similar proof, see State v. Nerini, 6 S.W.2d 853; State v. Stough, 2 S.W.2d, supra; State v. Widick, 292 S.W. 52; State v. Dailey, 280 S.W. 1044; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Thogmartin, 270 S.W. 313. We find no prejudicial error in the record.
(1) The search warrant issued by the justice of the peace was illegal and void, because the evidence shows that the applicant for the search warrant who signed and swore to the application had no personal knowledge of the facts therein set out, and there was no evidence introduced before the justice from which he could find probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Locke, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellman, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (2) The instruction requested by the appellant in the nature of a demurrer to the State's evidence should have been given.
(1) The information properly charges the manufacturing of intoxicating liquor. Sec. 21, Laws 1923, p. 242; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Alexander, 278 S.W. 709; State v. Wright, 280 S.W. 703; State v. Brown, 304 Mo. 78. (2) Appellant's objections to the admittance and rejection of testimony and to the overruling of the demurrer of defendant, are too general and too vague to merit consideration. Sec. 4079, R.S. 1919; Laws 1925, p. 148; State v. Jackson, 283 Mo. 24; State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 604; State v. Whitman, 248 S.W. 938. (3) Instruction 12 was entirely proper and in no way invaded the province of the jury.
Evidence of the guilt of Rass Rhodes was slight; but instructions of the court on this point were exceedingly liberal and weight of evidence was for the consideration of the jury. State v. Howe, 228 S.W. 477; State v. Winkler, 273 S.W. 1043; State v. Cason, 252 S.W. 689; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cardwell, 279 S.W. 99; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700. (3) The instructions of the court were proper and particularly fair and liberal toward the defendant. No exceptions were saved to the instructions given by the court, nor was any instruction offered by the defense.
Several cases of alcohol, the same as that found in the house, were also discovered in his car. State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Ayers, 285 S.W. 997. (2) It is largely the province of the trial court to decide how much of a rebuke is necessary to neutralize the danger which may be done by an attorney's statement. The court reprimanded the State's attorney in every instance requested but one and the defense attorneys themselves invited that statement.