Jackson v. State
Decision Date | 11 November 1918 |
Docket Number | 20384 |
Citation | 79 So. 809,118 Miss. 602 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | JACKSON v. STATE |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. R. W HEIDLEBERG, Judge.
Sid Jackson was convicted of burglary and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Judgment reversed.
S. M Graham, for appellant.
Earle N. Floyd, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
Sid Jackson was indicted for burglary and larceny and was convicted on said charge in the circuit court. The indictment charges that the defendant did unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously, break and enter in the nighttime a storehouse of one J. E. Gilbert with intent to steal therein, and did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously take, steal, and carry away certain described goods set out in the indictment of the value of three dollars and ninety-five cents. The proof shows that the store of J. A. Gilbert, merchant in the city of Meridian, was burglarized in the summer of 1915 and certain groceries taken therefrom. Mr. Gilbert was introduced as a witness and testified that the store was broken and entered into, and was asked the following questions:
Ed Holden, a policeman, testified: That he was on police duty at West End, and that Mr. Gilbert furnished the chief of police with the list of groceries that he had lost. That the chief turned the list over to him, and he had been watching the house of two negro women and had occasion to go into the house of these women that night to make them quit fussing, and while there he went into the kitchen and saw meat and lard, and got out his list and found stuff of the kind itemized in the list he had; that he arrested the two negro women, and they at once told him that Sid Jackson brought the goods there. That Sid Jackson was not at the house, and that he left Mr. Clinton in charge of the two women and went down to Jack Hall and found Sid there and arrested him and carried him back up there. Then he was asked the questions:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colburn v. State
......The testimony,. both for the state and as a whole, is wholly insufficient to. sustain a conviction. . . Richardson. v. State, 3380. 441; Ross v. State, 42 So. 821;. Reed v. State, 38 So. 320; Abele v. State,. 138 Miss. 772, 103 So. 370; Jackson v. State, 118. Miss. 602, 79 So. 809; Booker v. State, 9 So. 355;. Knight v. State, 74 Miss. 140, 20 So. 860;. Bowman v. State, 112 Miss. 789, 73 So. 787;. Wright v. State, 130 Miss. 603, 94 So. 716;. Gilford v. State, 115 Miss. 300, 76 So. 279;. Bowen v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 595, 133 S.W. ......
-
Yates v. State
......469, 92 So. 584; Miller v. State, 129 Miss. 774, 93 So. 2; Bridges v. State, 86. Miss. 377. . . There. is no proof, aliunde the confession, that Yates was ever at. the cottonhouse; and no identification of the seed was. attempted to be proved. . . Jackson. v. State, 118 Miss. 602, 79 So. 809. . . We. submit that the second instruction was most harmful to. appellant in that no warning was given us in the beginning of. the trial that any connection with Ransom Jones would be. submitted in an instruction to the jury so that we could ......
-
Cooksey v. State
...... sufficiently identified, and, in fact, the same was not. identified at all, and the evidence is failing in every. respect to show that the articles introduced in evidence were. taken from the store claimed to be burglarized. . . Jackson. v. State, 118 Miss. 602, 79 So. 809. . . To. sustain a conviction the property must be sufficiently. identified as that stolen at the time of the burglary. . . 9 C. J. 1081, sec. 141; Green v. State, 31 S.W. 386. . . W. D. Conn, Jr., Assistant ......
-
Patterson v. State
......There was even a sharp conflict of. opinion as to whether the oil found in the possession of the. defendant was motor oil or transmission grease, as was the. substance allegedly stolen, as testified to by Mrs. Holloway,. the owner of the warehouse. . . Jackson. v. State, 79 So. 809, 118 Miss. 602. . . The. fact that the appellant had in his possession several gallons. of oil similar to that stolen is what the state based their. case on. This oil could have been obtained in a hundred. different ways without stealing it. We submit that ......