Silva v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 13,322 |
| Citation | 93 Miss. 635,47 So. 464 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | SARAH DE SILVA v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
FROM the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. WILLIAM H. HARDY Judge.
Madame De Silva, appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of an assault and battery on Margaret Harvey and appealed to the supreme court. The judgment rendered against her on the first trial of the case was reversed and a new trial awarded. The decision on the first appeal is reported. De-Silva v State, 91 Miss. 777; 45 So. 611. Upon the remand of the case to the circuit court a second trial was had and the Madame again convicted and she again appealed (this the second appeal) to the supreme court.
The appellant's daughter had received several insulting anonymous postal cards and because of the similarity (real or imaginary) of the prosecutrix's handwriting to the writing on the cards appellant assumed that she had written them, and meeting her on the streets of Biloxi accosted her and charged her with having mailed the cards. Sharp words ensued between the two, followed quickly by a personal altercation wherein the prosecutrix sustained personal injury. The facts are further stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
J. H Mize, for appellant.
There is no evidence in this record on which the second instruction for the state, in any phase of the case, could be based. It is erroneous for three reasons:--
First. It assumes as a fact that postal cards were introduced in evidence addressed to parties other than defendant or members of her immediate family.
Second. It is a charge upon the weight of evidence even if the facts as shown by the record justified this instruction.
Third. It further assumes that the sending of postal cards to parties other than defendant or the members of her immediate family was the cause of the alleged assault and battery upon Mrs. Harvey by defendant.
There is absolutely no evidence that there were any cards sent to any persons other than appellant's husband and her three children.
George Butler, assistant attorney general, for appellee.
The only question for consideration on this appeal is the correctness of the second instruction for the state. Its correctness is challenged for many reasons, and it is difficult to defend the giving of the instruction, but it could not have operated to appellant's prejudice.
It is impossible to see how the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vance v. State
......State, 80 Miss. 175, 33 So. 579;. Fore v. State, 75 Miss. 727; Reed v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 94 Miss. 639, 47 So. 670. . . An. instruction which assumes a pivotal point is fatally. erroneous. . . Cunningham. v. State, 87 Miss. 417, 39 So. 531; De Silva v. State, 93 Miss. 635, 47 So. 464; Barber v. State, 125 Miss. 138, 87 So. 485; Robinson v. State, 16 So. 201; Ellerbee v. State, 79 Miss. 10, 30. So. 57. [182 Miss. 843] . . . The. instruction in no way defines either murder or manslaughter,. or sets out the quantum of ......
-
Dickins v. State
...v. State, 79 Miss. 10, 30 So. 57; Walton v. State, 87 Miss. 296, 39 So. 689; Fore v. State, 75 Miss. 727, 23 So. 710; and De Silva v. State, 93 Miss. 635, 47 So. 464, as requiring a It is true that an instruction must not assume as a fact any fact that is in issue, or where there is no evid......
-
Eaton v. State
...... self defense, real or apparent." No witness claimed that. appellant fired any of the shots; appellant denied having. fired any of them. . . King v. State, 23 So. 766; Stringer v. State, 38 So. 97;. Cunningham v. State, 39 So. 531; De Silva v. State, 47 So. 464; 14 R. C. L. pages 738, 739 and 740;. People v. Buckner, 3 A.L.R. 1323; McAndrews v. People, 24 A.L.R. 655; Karnes v. Commonwealth, 4. A.L.R., 509; State v. Bonning, 25 A.L.R. 879. . . The. trial court erred in granting the state's instruction:. . ......
- Golding v. State