Jones v. State

• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COOPER, J.
• Citation: Jones v. State, 67 Miss. 111, 7 So. 220 (Miss. 1890)
• Decision Date: 20 January 1890
• Parties: LEE JONES v. THE STATE

7 So. 220

67 Miss. 111

LEE JONES v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 20, 1890

FROM the circuit court of the second district of Yalobusha county HON. W. M. ROGERS, Judge.

Appellant Lee Jones, and one H. W. Atmore, were jointly indicted. The indictment contained two counts, in the first of which they were charged with selling spirituous liquor to Anderson Brooks, a minor. The second count charged them with selling liquor to Anderson Brooks without a license.

The defendant, Lee Jones, was tried, and the following verdict was rendered: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment."

The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Thereupon he interposed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was also overruled, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs. The judgment recites that he had been "tried and found guilty of selling liquor to a minor," and for this offense he is sentenced. The evidence on the trial is embodied in a bill of exceptions. There was no testimony in support of the charge contained in the second count of the indictment. The state proved that the defendant Jones had a license to retail. No license had been issued to Jones and Atmore.

Anderson Brooks, a witness for the state, testified that Jones sold him a half pint of whisky, and that he was at that time not quite twenty years of age. Referring to the cross-examination of this witness, the bill of exceptions recites as follows "Defendant's counsel, as a foundation to contradict this witness, asked him if on the day he said he got whisky from Jones, here in Water Valley, and when one Thos. Walker was with him did he, witness, not tell Thos. Walker that he had three thousand dollars where he could put his hands on it; that he would get half the amount collected on these whisky bonds, and that one John Burns was not able to attend to his business, and had given the job at three hundred dollars, so with this money he, witness, would be independent, or words to that effect. The witness answered this by saying, no such conversation nor any thing like it ever occurred."

Thos Walker was examined as a witness for defendant and was asked if Brooks had not made substantially the statement above inquired about, when he answered that, "Brooks did not exactly say that but on the day and date he did have a conversation with Brooks about getting the whisky." The district-attorney objected to evidence of any conversation or statement other than that about which Brooks had been interrogated. Counsel for defendant insisted that the witness should tell what the conversation was. The court sustained the objection, requiring the witness to be questioned in accordance with the predicate laid, and refused to allow him to testify as to the conversation had with Brooks. To this ruling the defendant excepted.

No objection was made in the court below to the joinder of counts in the indictment. Nor was any objection urged on the ground of uncertainty, either in the verdict or the sentence. From the judgment the defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

W. S. Chapman, for appellant.

I will only discuss one of the assignments of error. It was error to exclude the testimony of the witness Walker as to the conversation had with Anderson Brooks, the principal witness for the state. The jury had a right to all the evidence tending to sustain or impeach Brooks. The court required the identical question, and the whole of it, to be propounded to Walker as it had been propounded to Brooks, and ruled that it had to be answered categorically. The statement involved really three questions, and the court should have allowed these asked and answered separately. Instead of this, the witness was allowed to tell just enough to benefit the state, when the objection was interposed, and he was stopped.

If necessary, the jury should have been retired, in order that the court might ascertain from the witness what part of the conversation, with Brooks, if any,...