Hunt v. City of Tupelo

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hunt v. City of Tupelo

72 So. 895, 112 Miss. 178

DecidedOctober 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 72 So. 895 (Hunt v. City of Tupelo) 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

Hunt v. City of Tupelo, 72 So. 895, 112 Miss. 178 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the circuit court of Lee county where the appellant, Annie Hunt, was convicted of keeping’ malt liquors, beer, for unlawful purposes, in the city of Tupelo.

It appears from the record that the jury in the lower court returned a verdict of “guilty” to the clerk after court had adjourned for the noon hour, and in the absence of the judge, the defendant, and her counsel, without any agreement of the defendant or her counsel that the verdict might be returned in such manner, or any agreement whatever with reference to the return of the verdict by the jury; nor did the defendant below-in any other way waive her presence when the verdict was returned. The rule announced by this court in bane November 6, 1916, in Sarah Woods v. City of Tupelo, 72 So. 895, is applicable to the case before us now.

Therefore the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the circuit court of Lee county where the appellant, Annie Hunt, was convicted of keeping’ malt liquors, beer, for unlawful purposes, in the city of Tupelo.

It appears from the record that the jury in the lower court returned a verdict of “guilty” to the clerk after court had adjourned for the noon hour, and in the absence of the judge, the defendant, and her counsel, without any agreement of the defendant or her counsel that the verdict might be returned in such manner, or any agreement whatever with reference to the return of the verdict by the jury; nor did the defendant below-in any other way waive her presence when the verdict was returned. The rule announced by this court in bane November 6, 1916, in Sarah Woods v. City of Tupelo, 72 So. 895, is applicable to the case before us now.

Therefore the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 895, 112 Miss. 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-city-of-tupelo-miss-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack