Marks v. State

• Decision Date: 06 November 1893
• Citation: 71 Miss. 206,14 So. 459
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: L. MARKS v. THE STATE

14 So. 459

71 Miss. 206

L. MARKS v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 6, 1893

October 1893

FROM the circuit court of Quitman county, HON. R. W. WILLIAMSON Judge.

Section 1239, code 1892, is as follows: "If any member of the board of supervisors, or the clerk of said board, shall buy or in any way, directly or indirectly, become the owner of or interested in, any warrant or certificate, or claim or demand, payable out of the county treasury of his county without paying therefor the full face value of such warrant or certificate or demand, or interest in it, he shall, upon conviction, be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding six months in the county jail, and be removed from office."

Appellant, a member of the board of supervisors of Quitman county, was indicted under the above statute for the offense of having purchased two certain warrants of said county below their face value. The indictment follows the language of the statute. There was no conflict in the evidence. Only one witness was examined, and he testified to having sold to the accused two warrants at a discount of fifteen per cent.; that the trade was made directly with the accused, and in his office; that at the time of the purchase the accused told witness that the warrants were for the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company, or for one McGinnis, its land agent or commissioner. On cross-examination, the witness stated that accused told him he wanted the warrants for said company or its agent, to be used in the payment of its taxes.

In behalf of the state, the court instructed the jury that, if the accused bought the warrants for less than their face value and paid the witness for them, he was guilty as charged, although he bought the warrants for another. The accused was convicted, and, from a sentence of fine, imprisonment and removal from office, prosecutes this appeal.

Affirmed.

F. A Montgomery, Jr., for appellant.

The uncontradicted evidence is that appellant bought merely as an agent. While it is ordinarily true that one cannot excuse himself from the operation of a criminal statute by showing that he acted as the agent of another, the rule is not applicable where the act done by the agent is one which the principal could lawfully do. Appellant's principal, in person, could lawfully have bought the warrants. It follows therefore, that the purchase by an agent was not unlawful. Riley v. The State, 43 Miss. 397; Fahey v. The State, 62 Ib., 402; Ritcher v. The State, 63 Ib., 304; Story...