State v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 22 May 1905 |
| Citation | 38 So. 497,86 Miss. 439 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI v. DAVID V. RICHARDSON |
April 1905
FROM the circuit court of Alcorn county, HON. EUGENE O. SYKES Judge.
Richardson the appellee, was tried for enticing a laborer to leave her employer, and from a judgment of acquittal the state appealed to the supreme court.
Affirmed.
William Williams, attorney-general, for appellant.
No counsel appeared for appellee.
David V. Richardson was tried in the circuit court, having appealed from a conviction in the justice's court, on an affidavit which charged that said Richardson did on or about the 15th day of August, 1903, willfully interfere with, entice away, and knowingly employ Mary Jane Dilworth, a laborer, to leave her employer, Bert Coleman, with whom she had contracted to make and gather a crop during the year 1903, before the expiration of the contract, and that she left her employer without his leave or consent. The evidence conclusively established that Mary Jane Dilworth was a minor, eighteen years of age; that she herself had made no contract with Coleman; that she had been hired to Coleman by Bettie Dilworth, her mother and natural guardian, who contracted for herself and three minor children, including Mary Jane; that defendant, Richardson, before the expiration of the contract made with Bettie Dilworth for the service of Mary Jane, and with notice thereof, obtained permission of Bettie Dilworth to take Mary Jane to his home, in Prentiss county, and carried her (Mary Jane), she consenting thereto, to his home, to stay with his wife, where she remained until after the time had expired for which she had been hired by Coleman; and that this was without the consent of Coleman. It is manifest that every element of the offense charged was established, except the contract by Mary Jane Dilworth with Coleman, and that the learned judge directed a verdict for defendant because he held, as a matter of law, that a contract made by the natural guardian of a minor, hiring a minor for a definite purpose or period, was not a contract by the minor, within the contemplation of the statute; and this question of law is the sole question presented for decision on this appeal.
On this state of facts, the court excluded all the evidence and directed a verdict for defendant. This action of the court was correct. The statute upon which the prosecution was bas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Traylor
...be re-deposited by one of the officers or employees of their bank in a neighboring depository bank with disastrous result. In State v. Richardson, 86, Miss. 441, the court a penal statute, says, "The statute must be strictly construed." Again on the same page, "The language of the statute w......
-
Powell v. State
... ... but will seek an adjustment of its parts and a construction ... thereof that will relieve these autos from its operation, ... under the emphatic holdings of this court. State v ... Taylor, 56 So. 521, 100 Miss. 544; State v ... Richardson, 86 Miss. 439, 38 So. 497; Yerger v ... State, 91 Miss. 802, 45 So. 849; Adams v ... Saunders, 93 Miss. 520, 46 So. 960; State v ... Henry, 87 Miss. 125, 40 So. 152, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 340; ... Stewart v. State, 95 Miss. 627, 49 So. 615; Bishop ... on Statutory Crimes, par. 230 ... ...
-
Thompson v. Box
... ... Court should, if possible, uphold- ... statute by placing reasonable construction thereon, rendering ... it harmonious with federal and state Constitutions ... Supreme ... court, in construing a statute, must, if possible, uphold ... statute by placing a reasonable construction ... Otherwise, the ... employer would have had no property right in the services of ... his servant. Such is the holding in State v ... Richardson, 86 Miss. 439, 38 So. 497 ... In the ... next place, of course, the servant must have actually entered ... upon the performance of the ... ...
- Whitfield v. Burke