King v. State
Citations
- 66 Miss. 502
Syllabus
<p>1. Sale oe Liquors. Local act for district No. 1, Copiah county, construed. Indictment.</p> <p>Under the act of the legislature approved February 29,1888, entitled “An act to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in supervisor’s district No. 1, Copiah county, state of Mississippi,” it is unnecessary for an indictment to aver that a sale was made in a “ public place,” or “ for the purpose of inducing trade.” These terms apply only to giving away.</p> <p>2. Criminal Law. Evidence of distinct offenses under one'indictment. Prosecution, must elect.</p> <p>Where there are several offenses, for either of which the accused may be-convicted under the indictment, the prosecution should elect the offense which it will pursue, and the testimony should be confined to that offense, unless the case falls within some of the exceptions which render the proof of other distinct offenses admissible.</p> <p>8. Criminal Practice. Proof of several offenses. When prosecution should elect.</p> <p>Justice is best promoted by allowing the prosecution to proceed only far enough to identify one distinct offense, and the evidence should then be restricted to that offense.</p> <p>4. Criminal Intent. When immaterial.</p> <p>When an act is prohibited by law without reference to the intent or purpose with which it is done, the doing of the act is a violation of the law. The intent is immaterial.</p> <p>5. Sale oe Liquors. Knowledge by seller of intoxicating properties not material, when.</p> <p>When the statute makes the selling of intoxicating liquor unlawful, a seller thereof is not protected by his ignorance of the fact that it is intoxicating or his belief to the contrary.</p> <p>6. Same. Unlawful sale, how proven. Prima facie case.</p> <p>Proof of the sale by the defendant, and that the liquor was intoxicating, makes a prima facie case against him, and devolves on him the burden of showing that the liquor was a medicine and not a beverage.</p> <p>7. Unlawful Sale. What are deemed intoxi
Judges: Arnold
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- West v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1985-01-23· cited 283×
- Smith v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1986-11-26· cited 244×
- Cardwell v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1984-12-19· cited 38×
- Stewart v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1972-05-29· cited 27×
- Hawkins v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1955-05-16· cited 27×
- Shay v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1956-11-05· cited 21×
- Elmore v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1987-07-15· cited 14×
- Bradley v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1923-12-31· cited 10×
- Wilson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1962-03-26· cited 9×
- Hosey v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1974-09-23· cited 7×
- Bailey v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1889-10-15· cited 7×
- Naul v. McComb CityMississippi Supreme Court· 1893-03-15· cited 7×
- Readus v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1973-01-29· cited 6×
- Cook v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1902-10-15· cited 6×
- Kittrell v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1906-11-15· cited 6×
- Lowe v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1921-10-15· cited 5×
- Seid v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1956-02-27· cited 4×
- Ware v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1893-10-15· cited 2×
- Hyman v. StateMississippi Supreme Court· 1897-03-15
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.