Powell v. State
| Citation | 96 Miss. 608,51 So. 465 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1910 |
| Parties | ISRAEL POWELL v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
March 1910
FROM the circuit court of Jackson county, HON. WILLIAM H. HARDY Judge.
Powell appellant, was prosecuted for and convicted of assisting the purchaser in effecting a purchase and aiding a sale of intoxicating liquors, and appealed to the supreme court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
John H. Cook, for appellant.
Defendant had no interest in the liquors, and received nothing for what he did. He merely acted as a messenger for his thirsty friend and was not an agent within the meaning of the law.
There was no unlawful sale, even if defendant can be considered to have been the agent of his friend. The order for the liquors was sent to New Orleans, where the sale was lawfully made; there was nothing unlawful in the transaction.
George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
The appellant surely acted as the agent of the purchaser of the liquors. What appellant did was done in Jackson county, this state, where the sale, if made there, would have been unlawful. The statute, Code 1906, § 1771, deals only with the acts of the agent or assistant of the buyer or seller, and makes these acts unlawful. Hart v. State, 87 Miss. 182.
Assisting in effecting a sale of intoxicating liquors, at a place where a sale thereof would be unlawful, is itself made unlawful, and that too irrespective of where the sale was consummated, and whether it were a lawful or unlawful one.
Appellant was convicted in the court below for acting as agent or assistant of the purchaser in effecting a sale of intoxicating liquor and appeals to this court. One Hudson requested appellant to order for him a gallon of whisky, and gave him $ 4 with which to pay for same. At the request of appellant the whiskey was ordered from New Orleans by one Moseley, and upon its receipt was delivered by appellant to Hudson. The only question here involved is whether, under the foregoing facts, appellant is guilty of the crime defined by the statute.
Section 1771 of the Code of 1906 provides: "If any person shall act as agent or assistant of either the seller or purchaser in effecting the sale of any liquor, bitters, or drinks, the sale of which without license is unlawful under the provisions of this chapter, in any county, district, territory, or municipality...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Express Co. v. Miller
... ... that by so doing it would violate section 1771 of the Code of ... 1906, as construed in Hart v. State, 87 Miss. 171, ... 39 So. 523, 112 Am. St. Rep. 437, and Powell v ... State, 96 Miss. 608, 51 So. 465, appellees filed their ... bills in the ... ...
-
Horton v. State
...1771 of the Code of 1906 (chap. 62, p. 71, Acts of 1890), a conviction would have been sustained. For as stated by the court in Powell v. State, 51 So. 465, with to cases arising under this section, "the place where the sale was actually consummated becomes immaterial." In the case at bar, ......
-
State v. Owen
... ... specific offense dealt with by this particular statute, and ... every element of appellant's guilt is plainly ... shown." Hart v. State, 87 Miss. 182, 39 So ... 526. This case is the leading case in Mississippi and has ... been quoted and followed in numerous cases. See Powell v ... State, 96 Miss. 608, 51 So. 465, which cites and follows ... the Hart case, supra. The case of Anglin v. State, ... 96 Miss. 215, 50 So. 492, 728, is also a leading case on the ... question before the court in the case at bar ... With ... these considerations I submit this ... ...
-
Compton v. State
...did not sell the whisky to the witness, but simply acted as his agent or assistant in effecting the purchase thereof ( Powell v. State, 96 Miss. 608, 51 So. 465), for the commission of which crime appellant was not on The testimony of Paris, in effect, was that appellant ordered from Slidel......