Maxwell v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court October 15, 1890

Maxwell v. State, 68 Miss. 339 (Miss. 1890)

Cooper

Opinion of the Court

Cooper, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Pretermitting the expression of any opinion in reference to the sufficiency of the description of the property destroyed, the indictment must be quashed, because of the absence of the averment of the defendant’s malice.

The precise point involved was decided in Jesse v. The State, 28 Miss. 100.

*341It is to be Hoped that in framing a new indictment greater care will be observed in reference to all the points to which exception was taken by the motion to quash.

The judgment is reversed, the indictment quashed, and the accused directed to he held to ansioer such indictment as may he preferred against him.

Reference

Full Case Name: W. C. Maxwell v. State
Cited By: 2 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Ceijiuíai, Law. Indictment. Malice. Code 1880, § 2710. An indictment charging, in the language of § 2710, code 1880, the wilful burning of goods, and that it was felonious, but failing to allege defendant’s malice, is fatally defective. Jesse v. State, 28 Miss. 100.