Murphy v. State
| Decision Date | 08 December 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36591. |
| Citation | 202 Miss. 890,32 So.2d 875 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MURPHY v. STATE. |
Adams & Long, of Tupelo, for appellant.
Greek L. Rice, Atty. Gen., and Geo. H. Ethridge Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree adjudging appellant in contempt for violation of an injunction issued by the chancellor under Code 1942, Section 2646. This statute provides that This section may appropriately be taken in connection with Code 1942, Section 1278, which is declaratory of the power of the chancery court or chancellor in vacation to punish any person for violation of an injunction as for a contempt.
On April 15, 1946, decree was entered by agreement, upon proper petition enjoining appellant from selling or having in his possession liquor at the place of his home as therein described. The decree contained other provisions not here relevant. The petition prayed that said place be declared a nuisance and the defendant be enjoined from its further maintenance as such. Bond was not required by the decree.
On the 5th day of November 1946, a petition was filed for citation against appellant, setting out his violation of the injunction and praying that he be held and punished for contempt. The testimony was sufficient to establish that appellant was found in possession of a substantial quantity of whiskey which he was seen to hide about a foot and a half outside the fence which encloses his home place. Appellant told the officers who made the search that he was in the 'general bootlegging' business.
We find that the statute, Section 2646, is a constitutional exercise of legislative prerogative, at least insofar as it authorizes the abatement of any place as a nuisance and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinds County Bd. of Sup'rs v. Common Cause of Mississippi
...the statute, especially since it had been shown that prior to its issuance the defendants had repeatedly violated it. Murphy v. State, 202 Miss. 890, 32 So.2d 875 (1947); Brooks v. State, 219 Miss. 262, 68 So.2d 461 (1953); McGowan v. State, 258 So.2d 801 (Miss.1972); McComb v. Jacksonville......
-
State v. Myers
...nuisance under one or more of the common nuisance statutes of this State. Stevens v. State, 225 Miss. 48, 83 So.2d 645; Murphy v. State, 202 Miss. 890, 32 So.2d 875, 33 So.2d 786; Warren v. State, 231 Miss. 343, 95 So.2d 237; State ex rel. Hawkins, Dist. Atty. v. Busby, 224 Miss. 181, 79 So......
-
Freeman v. State
...there are no two cases anywhere exactly the same on their facts. However, the facts and conclusions drawn therefrom in Murphy v. State, 202 Miss. 890, 32 So.2d 875, 33 So.2d 786, have some bearing upon the question of proof of identity here. We think the finding of the chancellor that Mrs. ......
-
Brooks v. State, by Alexander, 38935
...questions have been decided adversely to the contentions of appellants. State v. Marshall, 100 Miss. 626, 56 So. 792; Murphy v. State, 202 Miss. 890, 32 So.2d 875, 33 So.2d 786; Foreman v. State ex rel. District Attorney, 209 Miss. 331, 46 So.2d 794; Bishop v. Bailey, 209 Miss. 892, 48 So.2......