Cannon v. State

98 So. 63, 133 Miss. 567, 1923 Miss. LEXIS 167
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 3, 1923
DocketNo. 23634
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 98 So. 63 (Cannon 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
Cannon v. State, 98 So. 63, 133 Miss. 567, 1923 Miss. LEXIS 167 (Mich. 1923).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary, one of the errors assigned being the overruling of a demurrer to the indictment. The indictment, Omitting the formal parts, is as follows: • ‘

“Did feloniously and burglariously break and enter the corn pen or house of one Forrest Willis, with the felonious •intent the goods and chattels of said Forrest Willis then and there kept to feloniously and burglariously take, steal, and carry away.”

The defect in the indictment that is challenged by the demurrer is that it fails to allege that the goods and chattels in the house alleged to have been burglarized were kept therein “for use, sale, deposit, or transportation.”

Section 1073, Code of 1906 (Hemingway’s Code, section 801), under which the indictment is dra.Avn, provides that: “Every person who shall be convicted of breaking and [570]*570entering, in the day or night, any shop, store, booth, tent, warehouse, or other building, ... in which any goods, merchandise, or valuable thing shall be kept for use, sale, deposit, or transportation, with intent to steal therein,” etc.

Under this statute, the breaking and entering of a house of the character therein described with intent to steal therein is burglary only where goods, merchandise, or other valuable things are kept therein “for use, sale, deposit or transportation.” Consequently, the purpose for which the goods, etc., are kept in the building is one of the elements of the offense created by the statute, and must be alleged in the indictment either in the words of the statute or their equivalent. Roberts v. State, 55 Miss. 421; 9 C. J. 1041.

The demurrer should have been sustained.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Harrison v. State
722 So. 2d 681 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998)
Johnny Pool v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1997
Steven Harrison v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1996
Brown v. State
48 So. 2d 131 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 So. 63, 133 Miss. 567, 1923 Miss. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-state-miss-1923.