outright confiscation.” 368 S.W.2d 432, 437 (Mo. 1963). The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the argument, noting first that the Missouri Constitution conferred upon state residents the power “to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by initiative and to approve or reject by referendum acts of the general assembly.” Id. at 434. The Court then distinguished these rights from the initiative rights granted to the county residents to challenge county ordinances, concluding that “[t]he powers reserved to the people of [the county] with respect to use of the initiative and referendum are defined and limited by [the county] charter.” Id.; see also State ex rel. Harry L. Hussman Refrigerator & Supply Co. v. City of St. Louis, 319 Mo. 497, 5 S.W.2d 1080, 1087 (1928) (<HOLDING>). Because the county charter did not permit
holding that the missouri constitution reserves the power of referendum only to acts of the state legislative assembly and not to acts of a municipality holding that when an indictment charges several acts conjunctively under a statute which subjects several alternative acts to the same punishment the government need only prove violation of one of the alleged acts to prove violation of the statute holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation holding missouri constitution requires stricter separation of church and state than does federal constitution holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility