Wells v. State
| Decision Date | 06 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | 12,806 |
| Citation | 90 Miss. 516,43 So. 610 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARTHA WELLS v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. ROBERT F COCHRAN, Judge.
Mrs Wells, the appellant, was indicted and tried on a charge of receiving stolen property, was convicted, fined $ 100 and sentenced to the county jail for ninety days. From the conviction and sentence she appealed to the supreme court.
The indictment, after its formal parts, charged that appellant "did unlawfully and feloniously obtain goods, the personal property of J. M. Smith and J. A. Pigford, of the value of about $ 30, before then feloniously stolen, taken and carried away; the said Martha Wells well knowing the said goods and chattels to have been stolen, taken and carried away; and the said Martha Wells did then and there feloniously have, take and conceal said goods; contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided," etc.
The appellant demurred to the indictment on the grounds that it was too vague and indefinite, there being no description of the property which she was charged to have received. The court below overruled the demurrer. There was a trial and jury verdict against appellant, the value of the property being by the jury found to be $ 17.50, less than the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny, had the indictment been for stealing.
Code 1906, § 1259 (Code 1892, § 1181) is as follows "If a person buy or receive in any manner or on any consideration personal property of any value, feloniously taken away from another, knowing the same to have been so taken, he shall be guilty of receiving stolen goods, and on conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than five years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months, and by fine, not more than two hundred dollars."
Judgment reversed, demurrer to indictment sustained indictment quashed.
F. V. Brahan, for appellant.
The appellant's demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained. The indictment was not good, under Code 1906, § 1259. It did not describe the property, nor specify the value of the same, nor from whom appellant received it. Nor does it properly charge any offense under the statute.
George Butler, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.
It cannot be denied that the facts showed that appellant was guilty of receiving stolen property.
It must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mackie v. State
-
Nguyen v. State
...facts at issue, the property that was allegedly received, with sufficient particularity. The appellants also cite Wells v. State, 90 Miss. 516, 43 So. 610 (1907), as authority for the proposition that the indictment does not describe the allegedly stolen goods with sufficient particularity:......
-
United States v. Johnston
... ... introduced the indictment, to which the defendant objected on ... the ground that it is insufficient in law, and does not state ... an offense against the United States. It also introduced ... testimony of identity of defendant ... The ... indictment charges, in ... property with the same particularity as required in an ... indictment for larceny. Duncan v. Commonwealth, 165 ... Ky. 247, 176 S.W. 984; Wells v. State, 90 Miss. 516, ... 43 So. 610. Charging the defendant with receiving $2,000 in ... United States currency, knowing the same to have been ... ...
-
Hitt v. State, 38661
...receiving stolen property to describe the property with the same particularity as is required in an indictment for larceny. Wells v. State, 90 Miss. 516, 43 So. 610. If the proof in this case were merely to the effect that Kit Bryant owned a one-eighth interest in the poison and the other p......