Jenkins v. State

• Decision Date: 27 April 1903
• Citation: 34 So. 217,82 Miss. 500
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGE JENKINS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

34 So. 217

82 Miss. 500

GEORGE JENKINS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 27, 1903

FROM the circuit court of Tishomingo county. HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.

Jenkins appellant, was indicted, tried, and convicted, under Code 1892, § 1594, of procuring intoxicants for one Brown, a person in the habit of becoming intoxicated, and appealed to the supreme court.

The proof was that Jenkins and Brown lived in Iuka, Miss., near the Alabama line, and Brown gave some money to Jenkins to buy whisky with, and Jenkins went to Cherokee, just over the state line in Alabama and bought the whisky, and started back to Iuka with it, but before he got into Mississippi he handed the jug of whisky to a boy on the train for safe-keeping, and did not take it into his actual custody any more. When he reached Iuka he was arrested, and some whisky he had was taken from him, and the jug he had bought for Brown was also gotten by the officer from the boy, and was never delivered to Brown at all. The proof also shows that Brown was in the habit of becoming intoxicated.

Affirmed.

Candler & Sawyer, for appellant.

Under section 1594, Code 1892, to sustain a conviction for "procuring whisky for a person in the habit of becoming intoxicated," it must be shown that the whisky was delivered to the person for whom it was obtained. The word "procure" has more in it than the mere fact of one person getting whisky into his possession for another. It also includes the delivery of the whisky to the person for whom it was obtained who is in the habit of getting drunk, as he is the person the statute was passed to protect, and no injury can be done him unless the whisky is delivered to him. In this case, the whisky was never delivered to Brown, the person in the habit of getting drunk.

Further there is no evidence in the record that Jenkins was not the guardian, etc., of Brown. Having alleged that, the state must prove it; criminal statutes must be strictly construed.

Further appellant never had the whisky in his possession in Mississippi. He bought it from a licensed dealer in Alabama and put in possession of a boy in Alabama and never had it himself any more.

J. N. Flowers, assistant attorney general, for appellee.

Section 1594 of the Code of 1892 makes it a crime to procure liquor for one who is in the habit of becoming intoxicated. Counsel for appellant contend that the crime was not completed until the liquor is delivered to the person for whom it was intended.

The criminal act is done when the liquor is procured for the unlawful purpose; procuring is the act condemned by the statute. It may be true that in such case the inebriate does not suffer, but the law punishes for crime whether any individual has suffered or not. The criminal act has proceeded well on its way when the liquor has been obtained for the person in the habit of becoming intoxicated, with his money, and the accused has been prevented from going further and delivering the goods only by the timely interference of an officer...