Page v. State

• Decision Date: 23 June 1913
• Citation: Page v. State, 105 Miss. 536, 62 So. 360 (Miss. 1913)
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERT PAGE v. STATE

62 So. 360

105 Miss. 536

ROBERT PAGE v. STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 23, 1913

March 1913

APPEAL from the circuit court of Claiborne county, HON. H. C MOUNGER, Judge.

Robert Page was convicted of acting as agent for the sale of intoxicating liquors and appeals.

The facts were fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

R. B Anderson, for appellant.

The court declined to require the state to elect upon which transaction it would prosecute, time and again. Evidence of several transactions was admitted over the earnest objection of defendant; and even though the court should hold that in a prosecution for acting as agent testimony as to more than one transaction may be offered, it surely was within the rights of defendant to insist that the state make an election.

After defendant filed his plea, the records shows that the stenographer noted, "Issue in short, by consent." This was the state's replication.

If it is the law that the state had a right to offer testimony as to more than one transaction, then the former acquittal is barred. The punishment and persecution to which this man has been subjected must appeal to the court's sense of justice. The record is replete with instances of error, and I respectfully maintain that he should be discharged.

Frank Johnston, assistant attorney-general, for the state.

I will briefly notice the objections presented in the demurrer to the indictment. The indictment contains a sufficiently specific charge of the offense. It is true that it does not state specifically the facts creating the agency nor was this necessary. There was no formal agency in the matter. There was no special contract of agency in this as there never is in this class of cases. These witnesses for the state simply stated that, at their request, the defendant bought this liquor for them on several occasions stated in their testimony. There was nothing, therefore, to charge in the indictment except the fact that the defendant purchased this liquor as an agent for the buyers. The time of the offense is given in the indictment. The venue is clearly stated and there is nothing in the record to show that the defendant's interests were prejudiced by the lack of more specific averments in the indictment. Certainly, there appears on the face of the indictment enough to inform the defendant clearly of the offense that he was called upon to answer. I will add the suggestion...