Polk v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 1888
• Citation: 4 So. 540,65 Miss. 433
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: L. H. POLK v. THE STATE

4 So. 540

65 Miss. 433

L. H. POLK v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 23, 1888

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Yazoo County, HON. T. J. WHARTON Judge.

L. H Polk was tried before a justice of the peace and convicted on a charge of causing to be removed certain cotton, encumbered by a deed of trust executed by him, from the county of its location, without the consent of the beneficiary in such deed, and without discharging such incumbrance. He appealed to the Circuit Court, and there he was again convicted whereupon he appealed to this court.

It appears that Polk owned certain cotton, on which he had executed a deed of trust; that the cotton was grown in Yazoo County, and the deed of trust was executed there; that he removed the cotton from the gin in that county in the night time, carried it to Yazoo City in the same county, and on the following day sold it to one Powell, who, in the course of business, sold it to one Mizelle, a cotton-buyer for Eastern mills; who, in the due course of his business, shipped it out of the State. No settlement of the debt secured by the deed of trust was made by Polk.

Reversed and remanded.

Calhoon & Green, for the appellant.

The evidence is not at all clear that Polk had anything to do with the removal of the cotton from the State. The State put Polk on the stand, and he testified he had nothing to do with the removal of the cotton; and we submit the State is bound by his testimony.

M. Green, of counsel for the appellant, argued the case orally.

T. M. Miller, Attorney General for the State.

As to the removal beyond the county, I take it there can be no doubt about the proposition that when a person deliberately sets in motion the instrumentalities that produce a given result, then he is responsible for the result, just as if he had specially commanded it. So, when Polk sold the cotton to Powell, Powell sold it to Mizelle, and he shipped it beyond the State, it would be, in law, the act of the defendant. The agent may be innocent and the principal guilty. A gives a poisoned apple to B, intending to destroy B or C. B innocently gives it to a child, who is killed by eating it. A is guilty of the child's murder, whether such result was contemplated or not.

OPINION

CAMPBELL, J.

A motion to quash or in arrest of judgment, if it had been made, would have been sustained, as no offence is charged. The offence created by § 2909 of the Code is...