Cohran v. State, 38975
| Decision Date | 01 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 38975,38975 |
| Citation | 219 Miss. 767,70 So.2d 46 |
| Parties | COHRAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ethridge & Ethridge, Oxford, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by John E. Stone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The grand jury of Lafayette County jointly indicted the appellant Mattie Cohran and Veotis Smith for having sold and delivered unto Ross Brown and Barry Brown, whom the proof showed to constitute a partnership engaged in operating a store, gin and plantation, four alleged 'forged and counterfeit writings', and for having obtained thereon from said Ross Brown and Barry Brown the sum of $54.09 of their money. The four alleged forged and counterfeit writings are set forth in the indictment in the following words and figures:
Date 10/30 50
M Bernees Jone
No. $300
Reg. No. Clerk, Account Forwarded 52
196
194
142
--------------------
532
PLM 3
--------------------
ok 15.96
II
Date 10/30 52
M Leeder Jomon
No. $300
Reg. No. Clerk Account Forwarded 52
196
184
124
--------------------
PLM 504
3
--------------------
ok $15.12
III
Date 10/30 52
M Edder Lee Mungg
No. $300
Reg. No. Clerk Account Forwarded 52
180
196
--------------------
PLM 376
3
--------------------
ok $11.28
IV
Date 10/30 52
M. Vinegar Jones
No. $300
Reg. No. Clerk Account Forwarded 52
196
195
--------------------
PLM 391
3
--------------------
ok $11.73'
The alleged indictment further states that the accused 'then and there wilfully, unlawfully, falsely, fraudulently and feloniously representing the same to be engagements for the payment of money, unto Ross Brown and Barry Brown, them the said Mattie Cohran and Veotis Smith, then and there well knowing the same to be forged and counterfeit, and with the wilful, unlawful, false, fraudulent and felonious intent of them, the said Mattie Cohran and Veotis Smith, to have the same uttered, passed and delivered.' The foregoing writings are said to be, according to the testimony, 'cotton tickets', and purporting to have been issued for and on behalf of Ross Brown and Barry Brown for services rendered in picking cotton for them. It was further shown in the testimony that only P. C. Miller and D. C. Houston had authority to issue cotton tickets for and on behalf of the owners of the plantation, and that the practice followed was to give each cotton picker one of these tickets and that when he picked and delivered a sack full of cotton the number of pounds contained therein would be written on the ticket and at the end of the day the number of pounds contained in each sack so delivered would be added up and the amount of money earned would be noted on the ticket and that then the same would be signed by either P. C. Miller or D. C. Houston and that the ticket would then constitute evidence that the owners of the plantation owed the cotton picker the amount of money noted thereon.
However, it will be noted that these so-called cotton tickets as set forth in the face of the indictment do not purport to have been issued for or on behalf of Ross Brown and Barry Brown, nor for or on behalf of any other person, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westmoreland v. State, 46118
...State, 191 Miss. 173, 2 So.2d 813; Kelly v. State, 204 Miss. 79, 36 So.2d 925; Love v. State, 211 Miss. 606, 52 So.2d 470; Cohran v. State, 219 Miss. 767, 70 So.2d 46. (239 Miss. at 487, 488, 123 So.2d at 616). We are unable to see any material difference in the charge in the foregoing indi......
-
Jones v. State
...may be challenged on appeal for the first time.” Salisbury v. State, 293 So.2d 434, 436 (Miss.1974) (citing Cohran v. State, 219 Miss. 767, 775, 70 So.2d 46, 48 (1954)). ¶ 15. Additionally, courts may amend an indictment as to defects of form, but only the grand jury may correct defects of ......
-
Brewer v. State.
...could not be amended. See Wortham v. State, 219 So.2d 923 (Miss.1969). The instant case bears a close resemblance to Cohran v. State, 219 Miss. 767, 70 So.2d 46 (1954). In that case, the defendant was charged with uttering forged cotton tickets in violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotate......
-
Salisbury v. State
...the indictment does not charge an offense that defects in an indictment may be challenged on appeal for the first time. Cohran v. State, 219 Miss. 767, 70 So.2d 46 (1954). We are of the opinion that it is a jury question as to whether or not the tools described in the indictment were intend......