State v. Hinton

Mississippi Supreme Court

State v. Hinton

104 So. 354, 139 Miss. 513, 1925 Miss. LEXIS 172

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1925

DocketNo. 24837.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 104 So. 354 (State v. Hinton) 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. Hinton, 104 So. 354, 139 Miss. 513, 1925 Miss. LEXIS 172 (Mich. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, 0. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by the state from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment. The indictment alleges in the language of chapter 245, Laws of 1924, on which the indictment is predicated, that the appellee “did have in his possession as integral part of a. distillery, commonly called a still,” and the ground of objection thereto is that it does not allege what part of a still the appellee had in his possession.

In alleging" a statutory offense, the language of the statute or its equivalent must be used, and “where the language is so specific as to give notice of the act made unlawful, and so exclusive as to prevent its application to other acts, it is sufficient to charge the offense by using only the words of the statute.” 2 Miss Digest, 695; Sullivan v. State, 67 Miss. 346, 7 So. 275; Rawls v. State, 70 Miss. 739, 12 So. 584; State v. Bardwell, 72 Miss. 535, 18 So. 377; Richburger v. State, 90 Miss. 806, 44 So. 772.

The act made unlawful by this statute is the possession of any integral part of a still specific notice of which is set forth in the language thereof, which language excludes guilt from the possession of any article other than an integral part of a still; consequently the indictment is clearly within this rule.

Reversed and. remanded.

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

Smith, 0. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by the state from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment. The indictment alleges in the language of chapter 245, Laws of 1924, on which the indictment is predicated, that the appellee “did have in his possession as integral part of a. distillery, commonly called a still,” and the ground of objection thereto is that it does not allege what part of a still the appellee had in his possession.

In alleging" a statutory offense, the language of the statute or its equivalent must be used, and “where the language is so specific as to give notice of the act made unlawful, and so exclusive as to prevent its application to other acts, it is sufficient to charge the offense by using only the words of the statute.” 2 Miss Digest, 695; Sullivan v. State, 67 Miss. 346, 7 So. 275; Rawls v. State, 70 Miss. 739, 12 So. 584; State v. Bardwell, 72 Miss. 535, 18 So. 377; Richburger v. State, 90 Miss. 806, 44 So. 772.

The act made unlawful by this statute is the possession of any integral part of a still specific notice of which is set forth in the language thereof, which language excludes guilt from the possession of any article other than an integral part of a still; consequently the indictment is clearly within this rule.

Reversed and. remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 354, 139 Miss. 513, 1925 Miss. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hinton-miss-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack