Horton v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Horton v. State

62 So. 360, 105 Miss. 333

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 15, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 So. 360 (Horton 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

Horton v. State, 62 So. 360, 105 Miss. 333 (Mich. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors. The record discloses that [337]*337appellant put np forty cents, and one Iieatlierly contributed thirty-five cents, to form a pool for the purpose of buying a bottle of whisky. Appellant took charge of the money and purchased the whisky, ánd he and Heath-erly afterwards, and speedily, consumed the same. This was the state’s case, and because the court, at the request of appellant, refused to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, this appeal is prosecuted.

Simmons v. State, 59 So. 849, and Wiley v. State, 74 Miss. 727, 21 So. 797, read together, we think, support the action of the trial court. In Simmons v. State it is said that Simmons aided ‘‘ the seller to sell,’’ and in Wiley v. State it is said, “All who aid in the commission of a misdemeanor are principals.” The fact that the respective shares of the parties were not in separate containers does not alter the fact that appellant assisted the seller to sell Heatherly whisky.

Affirmed.

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 of the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors. The record discloses that [337]*337appellant put np forty cents, and one Iieatlierly contributed thirty-five cents, to form a pool for the purpose of buying a bottle of whisky. Appellant took charge of the money and purchased the whisky, ánd he and Heath-erly afterwards, and speedily, consumed the same. This was the state’s case, and because the court, at the request of appellant, refused to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, this appeal is prosecuted.

Simmons v. State, 59 So. 849, and Wiley v. State, 74 Miss. 727, 21 So. 797, read together, we think, support the action of the trial court. In Simmons v. State it is said that Simmons aided ‘‘ the seller to sell,’’ and in Wiley v. State it is said, “All who aid in the commission of a misdemeanor are principals.” The fact that the respective shares of the parties were not in separate containers does not alter the fact that appellant assisted the seller to sell Heatherly whisky.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 360, 105 Miss. 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-state-miss-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack