Cage v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Cage v. State

62 So. 358, 105 Miss. 326

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 62 So. 358 (Cage 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

Cage v. State, 62 So. 358, 105 Miss. 326 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion, of the court.

The indictment in this case, charging appellant with the unlawful selling of intoxicating liquors, lays the date of the crime “on the-day of-, 1911.” Several witnesses were introduced whose testimony proved sev-ral distinct sales in the fall of 1911. In order that evidence may be given of more than one offense occurring anterior to the date laid in the indictment, the date must be specifically laid. Section 1762 of the Code of 1906 does not apply in a case like this. It is not sufficient to merely aver that the offense was committed some time during 1911. If the indictment had laid the date upon some fixed day in 1911, then evidence of several sales made anterior to the date and within the period of the' statute of limitations would have been competent under section 1762.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion, of the court.

The indictment in this case, charging appellant with the unlawful selling of intoxicating liquors, lays the date of the crime “on the-day of-, 1911.” Several witnesses were introduced whose testimony proved sev-ral distinct sales in the fall of 1911. In order that evidence may be given of more than one offense occurring anterior to the date laid in the indictment, the date must be specifically laid. Section 1762 of the Code of 1906 does not apply in a case like this. It is not sufficient to merely aver that the offense was committed some time during 1911. If the indictment had laid the date upon some fixed day in 1911, then evidence of several sales made anterior to the date and within the period of the' statute of limitations would have been competent under section 1762.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 358, 105 Miss. 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cage-v-state-miss-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack