Pearson v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1889 |
| Citation | 66 Miss. 510,6 So. 243 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | L. L. PEARSON v. THE STATE |
FROM the circuit court of Panola county, second district, HON. W M. ROGERS, Judge.
The appellant, Pearson, was convicted for violation of the "local option law" in Panola county. The evidence showed that Pearson was the owner of a saloon in Memphis Tenn., and was accustomed to travel in certain portions of this state, including said county, and solicit orders for whisky, to be shipped in jugs from the saloon in Memphis to the purchasers by express.
In the case at bar the defendant, while at Batesville in said county, received from one Still an order for two gallons of whisky to be shipped to the latter. The order was filled from the saloon in Memphis by delivery of the whisky to the express company there, consigned to the said purchaser, at Batesville. The purchaser paid the express charges upon the receipt of the whisky at Batesville, and afterward in the same town paid defendant the price which had been agreed upon. The defendant testified that he considered that his liability and responsibility ended with the delivery to the express company in Memphis.
The court gave the following instructions for the state:
"The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Pearson, the defendant, in this court district, agreed with Still upon the price of a gallon of whisky, and sold the same to him here to be delivered at Batesville at a future day, and that on a subsequent day the whisky was delivered to Still by the express company, and that after the whisky was delivered Pearson received from Still the price, before the delivery agreed upon, and that the money was paid in this court district, they will find the defendant guilty as charged."
The following instruction asked for by the defendant was refused:
"The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that at the time of the alleged sale of whisky that defendant was in business in the city of Memphis, state of Tennessee and that defendant solicited orders for the whisky to be afterward delivered from the state of Tennessee, and that defendant, in pursuance of the order for whisky, gives direction to his house in said state of Tennessee to forward the whisky through the Southern Express Company, and that defendant had no further control of the whisky after it had been delivered to said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Walters v. State
-
Anglin v. State
......Code. 1906, § 1404; Richburger v. State, 90 Miss. 806; Jenkins v. State, 82 Miss. 500. . . It is. manifest that this was a mere scheme and subterfuge to evade. both the law of Mississippi and of Louisiana, and that such. are unavailing in the courts of this state. Pearson v. State, 66 Miss. 510, 6 So. 243. . . . OPINION. . . [96. Miss. 220] SMITH, J. . . The. evidence in this case shows without conflict that the offer. to purchase the whiskey, the acceptance thereof, and the. payment of the price occurred in the state of ......
-
Lowenstein v. J. T. Bew & Co.
...trust-deed who were purchasers sub modo the moment the cotton reached the hands of the carrier for transportation to New Orleans. Pearson v. State, 66 Miss. 510. delivery to the carrier in the usual course is deemed prima facie a delivery to the consignee. 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 389; 39 N.Y. 34; 5......
-
Hurley v. City of Corinth
...Am. Rep. 402. The delivery to the carrier in the usual course of trade is deemed in law, prima facie, delivery to the consignee. Persons v. State, 66 Miss. 510. an offer to sell is made out of the state, the acceptance out of the state, and the price paid out of the state but the delivery m......