State v. Bertrand

72 Miss. 516
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 Miss. 516 (State v. Bertrand) 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
State v. Bertrand, 72 Miss. 516 (Mich. 1895).

Opinion

Cooper, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We know, because we are by law required to take judicial notice of the fact, that, at the time laid in the indictment, there had been a local option election held in Perry county, resulting against the sale of intoxicants therein. Code 1892, § 1621.

There could not have been a lawful sale of intoxicating liquor in the county, for no license might be lawfully granted in that county, and in no part of the state may one lawfully retail without license. The indictment therefor sufficiently charged a violation of law. Norton v. State, 65 Miss., 297. It was unnecessary to aver in the indictment that the local option law had been put in force in the county, for of that fact the court took judicial notice. Jackson v. State, 72 Ga., 28; Choen v. State, 85 Ind., 209 ; United States v. Williams, 4 Biss., 302 ; Bishop’s Dir. & Forms, §§ 261, 328, 346. The demurrer should have been overruled.

Reversed cmd rema/nded.

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

Related

Davis v. State
138 So. 3d 965 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2014)
Irby v. State
44 So. 801 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 Miss. 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bertrand-miss-1895.