Buck v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Buck v. State

121 So. 147, 153 Miss. 710, 1929 Miss. LEXIS 53

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 11, 1929

DocketNo. 27417.

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 147 (Buck v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Buck v. State, 121 So. 147, 153 Miss. 710, 1929 Miss. LEXIS 53 (Mich. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

The appellant was convicted in the court , below for having intoxicating liquor in his possession, and was fined two hundred dollars and given sixty days in jail.

The ease originated in the court of the mayor of the town of Lexington sitting as an ex oficio justice of the peace.

The evidence does not disclose in which supervisor’s district of Holmes county, in which.the town of Lexington is situated, the crime was committed, and the argument seems to be that. therefore the venue was not proven. "Whether the town of Lexington is operating under a special charter, or under the chapter on “Municipalities,” does not appear, but counsel for the appellant make, no contention that the mayor thereof is not invested with the powers of a justice of the peace within the limits of the municipality. This being true, the venue is established by proof of the commission of the crime within the municipality. Gober v. Phillips (Miss.), 117 So. 600.

The evidence on which the conviction rests was objected to in the "court below on the ground that it was secured by means of an invalid search warrant.

*712 The mayor of the town was informed by one Hicks that the appellant then had intoxicating liquor in his possession. The mayor thereupon prepared the necessary affidavit and search warrant, went with Hicks to Ramsey, to whom he communicated the information given him by Hicks, which Hicks then in the presence of Ramsey affirmed to be true, and Ramsey, acting on the information received from Hicks, made the affidavit which is in the statutory form. This is sufficient; the fact that the affidavit was made by Ramsey at the mayor’s suggestion being immaterial. All that section 1, chapter 244, Laws of 1924 (section 2238, Hemingway’s 1927 Code), requires is that the affidavit be made in statutory language by a “credible person.” Joe Mai v. State (Miss.), 119 So. 177.

The sentence is excessive, in that the imprisonment is for a greater length of time than permitted by section 17- of chapter 189, Laws of 1918 (Hemingway’s 1927 Code, section 2297). The judgment of the court below will be affirmed on the merits, but will be reversed in so far as it imposes punishment thereon, and will be remanded to the court below for a new sentence.

Affirmed in part, cmd reversed in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith, C. J.

The appellant was convicted in the court , below for having intoxicating liquor in his possession, and was fined two hundred dollars and given sixty days in jail.

The ease originated in the court of the mayor of the town of Lexington sitting as an ex oficio justice of the peace.

The evidence does not disclose in which supervisor’s district of Holmes county, in which.the town of Lexington is situated, the crime was committed, and the argument seems to be that. therefore the venue was not proven. "Whether the town of Lexington is operating under a special charter, or under the chapter on “Municipalities,” does not appear, but counsel for the appellant make, no contention that the mayor thereof is not invested with the powers of a justice of the peace within the limits of the municipality. This being true, the venue is established by proof of the commission of the crime within the municipality. Gober v. Phillips (Miss.), 117 So. 600.

The evidence on which the conviction rests was objected to in the "court below on the ground that it was secured by means of an invalid search warrant.

*712 The mayor of the town was informed by one Hicks that the appellant then had intoxicating liquor in his possession. The mayor thereupon prepared the necessary affidavit and search warrant, went with Hicks to Ramsey, to whom he communicated the information given him by Hicks, which Hicks then in the presence of Ramsey affirmed to be true, and Ramsey, acting on the information received from Hicks, made the affidavit which is in the statutory form. This is sufficient; the fact that the affidavit was made by Ramsey at the mayor’s suggestion being immaterial. All that section 1, chapter 244, Laws of 1924 (section 2238, Hemingway’s 1927 Code), requires is that the affidavit be made in statutory language by a “credible person.” Joe Mai v. State (Miss.), 119 So. 177.

The sentence is excessive, in that the imprisonment is for a greater length of time than permitted by section 17- of chapter 189, Laws of 1918 (Hemingway’s 1927 Code, section 2297). The judgment of the court below will be affirmed on the merits, but will be reversed in so far as it imposes punishment thereon, and will be remanded to the court below for a new sentence.

Affirmed in part, cmd reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 147, 153 Miss. 710, 1929 Miss. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buck-v-state-miss-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack