Cagle v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Cagle v. State

63 So. 672, 106 Miss. 370

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 63 So. 672 (Cagle 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

Cagle v. State, 63 So. 672, 106 Miss. 370 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court..

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The prosecution was begun before the mayor of the city of Corinth, as ex officio justice of the peace, and from a conviction in that court an appeal was taken to the circuit court, which court also convicted appellant; wherefore this appeal.

The state relied on several sales to different persons. C. A. Deloach, one of the state’s witnesses, testified that he bought from appellant a pint of whisky. It is contended by appellant, and we think correctly, that this witness did not fix the venue of his purchase within the corporate limits of the city of Corinth.

Lula Murphy, another state’s witness, testified that she, too, bought a pint of whisky from appellant, and in this she was corroborated by Jack Murphy, her husband; but neither witness testified that this sale occurred prior to the date of the affidavit.

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..

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The prosecution was begun before the mayor of the city of Corinth, as ex officio justice of the peace, and from a conviction in that court an appeal was taken to the circuit court, which court also convicted appellant; wherefore this appeal.

The state relied on several sales to different persons. C. A. Deloach, one of the state’s witnesses, testified that he bought from appellant a pint of whisky. It is contended by appellant, and we think correctly, that this witness did not fix the venue of his purchase within the corporate limits of the city of Corinth.

Lula Murphy, another state’s witness, testified that she, too, bought a pint of whisky from appellant, and in this she was corroborated by Jack Murphy, her husband; but neither witness testified that this sale occurred prior to the date of the affidavit.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 672, 106 Miss. 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cagle-v-state-miss-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack