Woodall v. State

93 So. 366, 129 Miss. 854
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided September 15, 1922·No. No. 22876·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment charging him with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. The evidence discloses a barter, and not a sale of the liquor, being that the appellant gave the prosecuting witness a pint of whiskey and one dollar in cash in exchange for a hog. An indictment charging a sale is not sustained by proof of a barter. State v. Austin (Miss.), 23 So. 34; Jones v. State, 108 Miss. 530, 66 So. 987, L. R. A. 1915C, 648; Black on Intoxicating Liquors, section 406; 23 Cyc. 181; 17 A. & E. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 298. The statute recognizes the difference between a sale and a barter; its provisions being that “if any person shall sell or barter, . . any vinous, alcoholic, malt, intoxicating, or spirituous liquors,” etc.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Woodall v. State, 93 So. 366, 129 Miss. 854 (Mich. 1922).

93 So. 366 (Woodall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elkins v. State
90 So. 2d 662 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1956)
Black v. State
24 So. 2d 117 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1945)