Smith v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Smith v. State

83 So. 337, 121 Miss. 37

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 112 Miss. 802 →

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided October 15, 1919·No. No. 28031·Published

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. The appellant was convicted for a violation of section 1054, Code of 1906 (section 782, Hemingway’s Code); hut the indictment on which he was tried is fatally defective, for the reason that it fails to charge that the mark altered by him was “ intended to designate ownership.” Consequently the demurrer thereto should have been sustained.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. The appellant was convicted for a violation of section 1054, Code of 1906 (section 782, Hemingway’s Code); hut the indictment on which he was tried is fatally defective, for the reason that it fails to charge that the mark altered by him was “ intended to designate ownership.” Consequently the demurrer thereto should have been sustained.

Reversed and remanded.

Smith v. State, 83 So. 337, 121 Miss. 37 (Mich. 1919).

Pincite

83 So. 337 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.