Lewis v. State, 38326
| Decision Date | 21 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38326,38326 |
| Citation | 56 So.2d 397 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Colin L. Stockdale, Jackson, for appellant.
J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen., by Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of the detestable crime of 'pigeon dropping' which under our statute, Section 2240, Code of 1942, is larceny. Garvin v. State, 207 Miss. 751, 43 So.2d 209, and authorities therein cited.
The evidence discloses the customary procedure,--the finding of a purse in the presence of the gullible victim, the representation that it contained a large sum of money, that this money should be divided between the three persons present, that it was necessary that the finder's 'boss man' should make the division, that the victim must put up a substantial sum of money as an evidence of good faith before receiving a share of the supposed loot, the delivery of such money to the perpetrators, their departure to get the 'boss man' to come and make the division between the parties, and the victim's ultimate realization that the 'birds have flown' to unknown parts.
Appellant assigns for error that the lower court should have sustained a motion for continuance, and, in connection therewith, that ample time should have been allowed for preparation of her defense. The motion does not comply with the requirements of Section 1520, Code of 1942, and was properly overruled. Moreover, under that section the trial court is vested with discretion as to whether a continuance will or will not be granted, and 'A denial of the continuance shall not be ground for reversal unless the Supreme Court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom.' We have repeatedly adhered to the statutory mandate. Newell v. State, 209 Miss. 653, 48 So.2d 332, and numerous authorities there cited.
Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to reopen the case in order to more clearly prove the victim's ownership of the money which had been taken from her. After conclusion of this testimony appellant was offered the opportunity to present any further testimony she might desire, and this offer was declined. Appellant was not prejudiced by this procedure and there is no error therein. Williams v. State, Miss., 26 So.2d 64, not reported in State Reports; Morris v. State, 148 Miss. 680, 114 So. 750; State v. Martin, 102 Miss. 165, 59 So. 7.
Appellant lastly complains that there was error in overruling her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...out a sufficient case. Permission to reopen did not constitute an abuse of discretion. There was no prejudice from the action. Lewis v. State, Miss., 56 So.2d 397; Williams v. State, Miss., 26 So.2d 64; Morris v. State, 148 Miss. 680, 114 So. 750; State v. Martin, 102 Miss. 165, 59 So. The ......
-
Ponder v. O'Neal Elec. Co.
...the continuance was not for dilatory purposes. A motion which does not comply with the statute may be properly overruled. Lewis v. State, 56 So.2d 397 (Miss.1952). Moreover, contrary to the essential requirement of section 1920, supra, appellants' motion and affidavit for continuance fails ......
-
Taylor v. State, 38448
...Atty. Gen., Joe T. Patterson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. KYLE, Justice. This case is a companion case to the case of Lewis v. State, Miss., 56 So.2d 397. The appellant was convicted of the crime of 'pigeon dropping' which, under our statute, Section 2240, Code of 1942, is larceny. Garv......