Cannon v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Cannon v. State

105 So. 501, 140 Miss. 217, 1925 Miss. LEXIS 251

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 12, 1925

DocketNo. 24967.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 So. 501 (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, 105 So. 501, 140 Miss. 217, 1925 Miss. LEXIS 251 (Mich. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

*220 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction for petit larceny, and the only assignment of error to which response is necessary is that the court below erred in permitting the district attorney to amend the affidavit on which the case was tried. The case originated in the court of a justice of the peace, and the affidavit as originally drawn alleged ownership of the property in Forest "Willis. When the case came on for trial in the circuit court, the district attorney was permitted over the objection of the appellant, to amend the affidavit by alleging the ownership of the property in Forest Willis and three other persons, naming them, who, according to the evidence, were joint owners of the property. This amendment was necessary “to bring the merits of the case fairly to trial on the charge intended to be set out in the original affidavit,” and consequently the court below committed no *221 error in permitting it to be made. Section 1511, Code of 1906 (Hemingway’s Code, section 1269); Foster v. State, 52 Miss. 695.

Affirmed.

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

*220 Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction for petit larceny, and the only assignment of error to which response is necessary is that the court below erred in permitting the district attorney to amend the affidavit on which the case was tried. The case originated in the court of a justice of the peace, and the affidavit as originally drawn alleged ownership of the property in Forest "Willis. When the case came on for trial in the circuit court, the district attorney was permitted over the objection of the appellant, to amend the affidavit by alleging the ownership of the property in Forest Willis and three other persons, naming them, who, according to the evidence, were joint owners of the property. This amendment was necessary “to bring the merits of the case fairly to trial on the charge intended to be set out in the original affidavit,” and consequently the court below committed no *221 error in permitting it to be made. Section 1511, Code of 1906 (Hemingway’s Code, section 1269); Foster v. State, 52 Miss. 695.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 So. 501, 140 Miss. 217, 1925 Miss. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannon-v-state-miss-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack