Robinson v. State
| Decision Date | 09 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23798 |
| Citation | 100 So. 377,135 Miss. 774 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. STATE. [*] |
INNKEEPERS. Fraudulent obtaining of board involves fraudulent intent manifested by display of baggage.
Chapter 137, Laws of 1913 (sections 2068 and 2069, Hemingway's Code), prohibiting the fraudulent obtaining of board and lodging, etc., by false display of baggage or other property etc., does not apply to board obtained on an agreement to pay at a future day, where no display of property was made, nor any representation made in reference thereto. The two sections are to be construed together, and their meaning deduced therefrom, and, when so considered, the fraudulent intent must be manifested from a display of baggage or other property.
APPEAL from circuit court of Jasper county, Second District, HON. W. L. CRANFORD, Judge.
L. E. Robinson was convicted of fraudulently obtaining board, and he appeals. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Judgment reversed, and appellant discharged.
W. I. Munn, for appellant.
L. E. Robinson, the appellant, was originally charged before a justice of the peace of Jasper county, Mississippi, with having obtained board fraudulently from one M. Williams in violation of sections 2068 & 2069 of Hemingway's Code, Laws 1912, chapter 137, and was tried and convicted in justice court and appealed to the circuit court, where the case was tried de novo and he was sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and appealed.
In the light of the testimony as outlined by the state witness, Mr. Williams, the appellant, has committed no crime. From the testimony of Mr. Williams, he agreed to an extension of time as shown by his own testimony, and the later section of the code states that where there is an agreement as to an extension of time in the payment of the board bill, the statute does not apply.
Again to bring the appellant, Robinson under the condemnation of this statute, or these two sections of the code, it will be necessary for the appellant, to have done or said something with reference to his baggage or his property at the time of the making of the contract between himself and Mr. Williams.
There is no contention made on the part of the state to prove that Robinson, the appellant, in any manner whatever misled, or attempted to mislead Mr. Williams in regard to the ownership of his property, at the time of the making of the board contract.
E. C. Sharp, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
We have been unable to find where our court has ever passed on this act, but in the well-reasoned case of In Re Fred Milecke, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 259, we find where a very similar act was upheld. See, also, State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546; State v. Benson, 28 Minn. 424; State v. Engle, 156 Ind. 339.
W. I. Munn, for appellant in reply.
The attorney-general misconceives the brief for the appellant when he says that we devote our brief to the unconstitutionality of the two sections of the code referred to.
We did say that the law referred to would be in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of the state Constitution, if it meant conviction under the testimony of the case at bar.
We do not contend that the two sections referred to are illegal and void, but we do contend that in order to sustain a conviction, the testimony must be in harmony with the law as announced in these two sections of the code.
We can well understand under proper circumstances how anyone could be convicted under this law, but we cannot understand how a conviction could be had under the testimony in this case.
Appellant was tried and convicted of fraudulently obtaining board in violation of chapter 137, Laws of 1912 (sections 2068 and 2069, Hemingway's Code). The affidavit charging the offense alleges that the appellant "did unlawfully willfully, and with the intent then and there to cheat, wrong, and defraud affiant, who was the owner or keeper of an eating house, abscond and leave affiant's premises, and go to parts unknown, without the consent and approval of affiant, without paying and making...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Davis v. State
-
Cottonreeder v. State
...or inability to pay in order to establish a fraudulent intent. Easterling v. State, Miss., 194 So. 289 (1940); Robinson v. State, 135 Miss. 774, 100 So. 377 (1924). "Since such statutes are penal in nature, they are subject to strict construction, and will not be applied to persons, acts, o......
-
Duncan v. State
... ... nor justify the action of the officer in continuing the ... search. In other words, there would never have been an ... abandonment of the unlawful search, but merely a continuation ... of it after the attempted procurement of a lawful search ... warrant. Robinson v. State, 135 Miss. 774, 101 So ... 706; Jordon v. State, 100 So. 384 ... On the ... other hand, however, if the officer was lawfully within the ... house, and being there on a lawful mission, he as an incident ... thereto saw that the defendant possessed things which were ... ...
-
State v. Baize, 63488
...was obtained; a mere failure, refusal or inability to pay does not constitute the offense. 40 Am.Jur.2d 954 (1968). See Robinson v. State, 135 Miss. 774, 100 So. 377, People v. Nicholson, 25 Misc. 266, 55 N.Y.S. Despite the hotel's announced policy that cash customers were required to pay d......