Puckett v. State

• Decision Date: 04 December 1893
• Citation: 71 Miss. 192,14 So. 452
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: D. J. PUCKETT v. THE STATE

14 So. 452

71 Miss. 192

D. J. PUCKETT v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 4, 1893

October 1893

FROM the circuit court of Rankin county, HON. A. G. MAYERS, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Affirmed.

A. J McLaurin, for appellant.

An unsworn report of the commissioners of the election was spread on the minutes of the board of supervisors at a special session, to which the board had adjourned at its previous meeting. There is no warrant in law for such a meeting. Wolfe v. Murphy, 60 Miss. 1. The acts of the board at such a meeting are nullities. Smith v Nelson, 57 Miss. 138. It was necessary for the report to be verified by affidavits of the commissioners. This, when spread upon the minutes, is the only evidence of the result. Code 1880, § 135. Bryant v. State, 65 Miss. 435; McDonald v. State, 68 Ib., 728. It follows that there was no legal evidence that the local option law was in force, and defendant's objection to the introduction of the report should have been sustained.

Frank Johnston, attorney-general, for the state.

The board of supervisors did not act originally on the report. It merely allowed it to be spread on the minutes. Even if the meeting was not authorized, the irregularity of the board would not invalidate the report. The report itself was correct, and it was spread on the minutes. The board of supervisors had no authority to examine and certify to the report. While the commissioners were required to do this, it was not required that they should report that the election was held at the proper places. They were to simply report the result.

OPINION

COOPER, J.

The appellant was indicted and convicted of the offense of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in less quantity than one gallon in the county of Rankin, in violation of the provisions of the act of March 11, 1886, commonly known as the local option law. The conviction was at the February term, 1893, on an indictment returned on February 17, 1892, the evidence disclosing that the sale was on the -- day of August, 1890.

On the trial, the state, for the purpose of proving the adoption of the local option act in the county of Rankin, introduced in evidence the minutes of the board of supervisors, containing what purported to be a report of the commissioners of the election held under the provisions of the local option statute.

The defendant objected to said minutes --

1. Because they were the minutes of the board at a special term not called or held according to law.

2. Because there was no order of the board of supervisors for an election to be held at the places of holding elections for members of the legislature in Rankin county.

3. Because the report does not certify that said commissioners of election canvassed the returns made to them by the inspectors.

4. Because said report does not certify that said commissioners determined the result of a canvass of the returns of the inspectors.

5. Because said report does not show that the election was held at places for holding elections for members of the legislature in Rankin county.

In addition to these objections, it is now also urged that the report of the commissioners was not verified by their oaths, as required by law.

It is immaterial that the report of the commissioners was spread upon the minutes of the board of supervisors at a special and unauthorized meeting, instead of upon those of a regular and legal session. The board was not authorized or required to take any action upon the return of the report of the commissioners. But, to preserve in a perpetual memorial the report of the commissioners, the law provided...