Young v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Young v. State

73 So. 786, 112 Miss. 769

DecidedOctober 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 73 So. 786 (Young v. State) 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

Young v. State, 73 So. 786, 112 Miss. 769 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Ethbidge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Walter Young was convicted in the circuit court of Alcorn county on a charge of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years. There was no demurrer to the indictment, nor motion to quash, but after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty motion was made in arrest of judgment, and it is now complained that the indictment does' not sufficiently charge violence to the person of the person robbed. The statutes of the state provide two methods of raising questions as to the sufficiency of the indictment: First, where the defect appears on the face of the indictment, it must be taken by demurrer, and not otherwise; and where the defect does not appear on the face of the [773]*773indictment, must be by motion to qnasb. Sections 1426 and 1427, Code of 1906. As “charity covers a multitude of sins” in the domain of morals, so a verdict of a jury in Mississippi covers a multitude of defects in pleadings; and it is only in cases where the indictment is a nullity, because of insufficiency, that a motion in arrest of judgment can be entertained at all.

This case is exactly parallel with State v. Presley, 91 Miss. 377, 44 So. 827, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Ethbidge, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Walter Young was convicted in the circuit court of Alcorn county on a charge of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary for five years. There was no demurrer to the indictment, nor motion to quash, but after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty motion was made in arrest of judgment, and it is now complained that the indictment does' not sufficiently charge violence to the person of the person robbed. The statutes of the state provide two methods of raising questions as to the sufficiency of the indictment: First, where the defect appears on the face of the indictment, it must be taken by demurrer, and not otherwise; and where the defect does not appear on the face of the [773]*773indictment, must be by motion to qnasb. Sections 1426 and 1427, Code of 1906. As “charity covers a multitude of sins” in the domain of morals, so a verdict of a jury in Mississippi covers a multitude of defects in pleadings; and it is only in cases where the indictment is a nullity, because of insufficiency, that a motion in arrest of judgment can be entertained at all.

This case is exactly parallel with State v. Presley, 91 Miss. 377, 44 So. 827, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 786, 112 Miss. 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-miss-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack