Brown v. State
Decision Date | 05 January 1903 |
Citation | 81 Miss. 143,33 So. 170 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | DUDLEY BROWN v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
October 1902
FROM the circuit court of Pike county HON. JEFF TRULY, Judge.
Brown the appellant, was indicted, tried, and convicted of burglary, and appealed to the supreme court. The indictment charges that appellant did break and enter, etc., the storehouse of Aaronson, etc. The proof showed that the ownership of the freehold of the property entered was in one Moyse, but that Aaronson had rented the house for a storehouse, and used and occupied it as such at the time the goods were stolen therefrom. The court refused the following instruction asked for defendant: "If the jury believe in this case beyond all reasonable doubt that the storehouse alleged to have been broken into was not the property of Aaronson, as alleged in said indictment, you must find the defendant not guilty."
The district attorney made the following remarks to the jury, to which the defendant's counsel objected: Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled.
Affirmed.
Ratcliff & Wall, for appellant.
This cause should be reversed because the trial court refused the instruction asked for by defendant, based upon the fact that the indictment averred the ownership of the building alleged to have been burglarized to have been in Aaronson. The proof shows said property to be that of Moyse. This variance is fatal. James v. State, 77 Miss. 370.
This case should also be reversed and remanded because of the manifest unfairness and illegitimate argument of the district attorney in his final argument to the jury, to which the proper and legal exception was taken at the proper time. Cheat-ham v. State, 67 Miss. 335; Cartwright v. State, , 71 Miss, 82; Cavanah v. State., 56 Miss. 299; Martin v. State, 63 Miss. 505; Pullman Co. v. Lawrence, 74 Miss, 782; Hemingway v. State, 68 Miss. 371; Wood v. State, 64 Miss. 761; Lamar v. State, 65 Miss. 93.
William Williams, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The burglarized store is shown by the whole testimony to be that of Aaronson. The goods taken therefrom were the property of Aaronson. He had charge of, control over, and was doing business in the store burglarized. To all intents and purposes the storehouse, at the time the burglary was committed, belonged to Aaronson. It matters not whether the fee simple title was in him or Moyse.
Argued orally by Clem V. Ratcliff, for appellant, and by William Williams, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The ownership was properly laid in Aaronson. He had rented the house as a storehouse, occupied it, and used it as such, and the goods were stolen therefrom. In Webb v. State, 52 Ala. 422, the rule is thus correctly stated: Rex v. Rees, 7 Car. & P. 568; 32 E.C.L. 633, is a striking case. A gardener lived in a house of his master, quite separate from the dwelling house of his master, and the gardener had the entire control of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blackwell v. State
...... . . The. language used by the district attorney in his closing. argument was prejudicial to appellant's rights and. constitutes reversible error. . . Buckley. v. State, 62 Miss. 705; Woods v. State, 7 So. 495,. 67 Miss. 575; Glenn v. State, 2 So. 109; Brown. v. State, 23 So. 422; Townsend v. State, 12 So. 209; McEwen v. State, 16 So. 242; Rucker v. State, 18 So. 121; Smith v. State, 43 So. 465;. Gaines v. State, 48 So. 182; Chatman v. State, 59 So. 8; Jones v. State, 122 So. 760. . . All of. the above cases cited refer ......
-
Wood v. State
...... . . Roberts. v. State, 54 Miss. 421; Dees v. State, 89 Miss. 754,. 42 So. 605. . . Permitting. the indictment to be amended so as to change the word. "Agamando" to "Sajamada" was erroneous. . . James. v. State, 77 Miss. 370; Brown v. State, 81 Miss. 143, 33 So. 170; House v. State, 121 Miss. 43, 83. So. 337; Wright v. State, 130 Miss. 603, 94 So. 716;. State v. Ellis, 102 Miss. 541, 59 So. 841; Lewis. v. State, 85 Miss. 35, 37 So. 497; House v. State, 74 Miss. 368, 20 So. 838; McDonald v. State, 68. Miss. 348, 8 So. ......
-
Wells v. State
...argument that is improper that will cause a reversal of a case. Matthews v. State, 148 Miss. 696; Blackwell v. State, 135 So. 192; Brown v. State, 81 Miss. 143; Callas State, 151 Miss. 617; Shows v. State, 103 Miss. 640; Denson v. State, 139 Ala. 109; Jacobs v. State, 103 Miss. 622; Pittman......
-
Davis v. State
...... such possession is wrongful and regardless of where the title. may be. . . Lewis. v. State, 85 Miss. 35, 37 So. 497; Clinton v. State,. 163 Miss. 435, 142 So. 17. . . It is. proper to aver ownership in a tenant where the charge is. burglary. . . Brown. v. State, 81 Miss. 143, 33 So. 170. . . Appellant. says that the verdict in this case was against the. overwhelming weight of the evidence. There was no motion for. a new trial filed by or for appellant and hence this court. cannot now pass upon this proposition. The trial court ......