Mays v. State

• Decision Date: 23 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. 38628,38628
• Citation: 216 Miss. 631,63 So.2d 110
• Parties: MAYS v. STATE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 110

63 So.2d 110

216 Miss. 631

MAYS v. STATE.

No. 38628.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 23, 1953.

King & King, Durant, for appellant.

J. P. Coleman, Atty. Gen. by Geo. H. Ethridge, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Justice.

Appellant Charlie Mays was convicted in the Circuit Court of Quitman County of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 16 years of age, his son, in violation of Mississippi Code of 1942, 1950 Supplement, Section 7185-13, which provides in part: 'Any parent, guardian or any other person who wilfully commits any act or omits the performance of any duty which act or omission contributes to or tends to contribute to the neglect or delinquency of any child as defined in this act, * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months in jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

This statute is part of the Youth Court Act of 1946, being Section 13 of Mississippi Laws of 1946, Chapter 207. Section 2(g) thereof, being Code of 1942, 1950 Supplement, Section 7185-02(g), contains the following definition:

'Delinquent child' is synonymous with the meaning of what is commonly called a juvenile offender, and means any child not less than ten (10) years of age whose occupation, behavior, environment or associations are injurious to his welfare or the welfare of other children; or who deserts his home; or who is habitually disobedient to or beyond the control of his parents, guardian or custodian; or who being required to attend school wilfully violates rules thereof, or wilfully absents himself therefrom; or who violates any state law or municipal ordinance; or who, by reason of being habitually wayward or habitually disobedient, becomes an incorrigible or uncontrollable child; or who so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or any other person.'

Sheriff J. H. Kimbro of Quitman County and two other officers testified that on the night of April 28, 1952, they hid themselves in a house rented and occupied by a Negro named Baker Caines, which was on a farm south of the City of Marks in Quitman County. They had previously found 97 gallons of whiskey in a small out building behind that house. At about 8 o'clock that night two Negroes came for the whiskey, but Caines, in accordance with the officers' instructions, told them that he would not turn it over to anybody but the owners. About thirty minutes later a white man came to Caines' door, and Caines told him that some cotton-seed had been stolen at this place and that they must move the whiskey that night. At about 10 o'clock P. M. appellant Charlie Mays, and his son Charles Lamar Mays, otherwise referred to as Charlie Mays, Jr., drove up the gravel road towards Caines' house, and he and his boy got out of the car and came to Caines' front door. Appellant told Caines that the whiskey was his and that 'they' were not going to steal his whiskey, that he would be back after it. The officers remained in Caines' house. At 1 o'clock A. M. April 29th, appellant, W. B. Long, and appellant's son 'returned for the whiskey'. It was located in a little building or barn situated directly behind the kitchen of Caines' house on the south end, about 15 feet from the house. This barn had a door on the north part of the east side which could be seen from the back window of the kitchen. Appellant, Long and Charlie Jr. first stopped in their car on the road and shone a flashlight around about the house, apparently in order to see whether anyone was in that vicinity. The car in which these three parties were riding was then backed up to the east door of the barn. Charlie Jr. and Caines went inside the barn. Long and appellant were standing between the car and the barn. One or both of the persons in the barn were passing the whiskey out to Long and appellant, who in turn loaded the whiskey in the car. The sheriff, the two other officers, and a Negro named Winston, who was accompanying the officers, all testified on direct examination that they saw Charlie Jr. handing the whiskey out to his father, the appellant, and to Long. However, on cross-examination they all frankly stated that they did not actually see Charlie Jr. with any whiskey in his hand, but they knew he was in the building with Caines, and they inferred that he was handing the whiskey out. After watching this operation from the kitchen window for a short time, the officers went out and arrested appellant and his companions.

Baker Caines, the Negro in whose house the officers had hidden, testified for the State. He said that Charlie Jr. was present in the barn but that he was not doing anything, just standing by the side of the door; that he, Caines, was doing all of the handing out of the whiskey from the barn, and that Charlie Jr. did not touch it. Long was driving the car. City Policeman McArthur testified that while Long was backing the car up to the barn, appellant and his son were shining a light at the back door of the house to enable the car to back up to the adjacent barn door. When the officers got to the barn prior to the arrest, Caines and appellant's son were on the inside of it. Deputy Sheriff Brown said that appellant and his son looked around the place with their flashlights before backing up to load the liquor.

Charlie Mays, Jr., testified for the defendant. He said that on that night he was at home watching television, when his uncle walked in. The uncle told him that Charlie Jr.'s grandfather was sick with cancer in a Jackson hospital. His mother told him to find his father and tell him about this. A woman friend of the family drove him to Caines' house. Someone else had told him where his father was supposed to be. The first time Charlie Jr. said he saw his father and Long was when they pulled in the driveway to Caines' house around 1 A. M. He remained with his father so that appellant could go with him. He said that he took no part in any loading of whiskey, and that his grandfather had had cancer for a long time. Appellant testified in his...