West v. State
West v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The first count in the indictment is good, for it charges a sale of liquor without authority of law, and that is an offense under the general law. Norton v. State, 65 Miss., 297.
The second count, tested by the law in force prior to the
Chapter 37 of the code of 1892, on dram-shops, except as to licenses obtained after April 2,1892, was not in force until November 1,1892, and has no influence on this indictment.
The demurrer was properly overruled, because it was to the indictment, and one count is good; and, for the same reason, the motion in arrest of judgment was not sustainable-But the first count is not proved, and, while the second is supported by evidence, it does not warrant conviction, because it does not sufficiently charge the offense. Norton v. State, supra.
■ Evidence of a receipt by West in Pike county of an order for liquor, which he afterwards sent and got pay for, does not show a sale in that county, and therefore does not sustain the first count of the indictment. It is probable that “to sell” was used in the second section of chapter'62 of the acts of 1890 under the mistaken notion that thereby receiving orders for liquor, to be sent into forbidden territory, was prohibited, but it is impossible for a court to ascribe such meaning to the words used, which is not sanctioned by either legal or popular usage. If the purpose was to make receiving an order for liquor an offense, different language should have been employed. It is inadmissible to give to words a meaning they do not contain in order to accomplish an object it may be supposed the law-maker had in view. To predicate a sale of simply receiving an order for an article to be thereafter delivered, would violate not only all legal views of the term, but every definition given by lexicogi’aphers, or derived from the word itself.
It is useless to notice the instructions.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. L. West v. State
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Liquors. Sale without authority of law. Indictment. An indictment is good which charges, generally, a sale of liquor without authority of law. Noi ton v. State, 65 Miss., 297. 2.' Same. Local option law of 1886. Indiietment. Allegation of election. Tested by the law in force before the code of 1892 went into effect, a count in an indictment for selling liquor in violation of the local option law of 1886, which fails to aver that said law had been put in force by an election in the county, is bad. Norton v. State, supra. 3. Same. Code 1S92, ch. 37. When taking effect. Unlawful retailing. Chapter 37, code 1892, entitled “Dram-shops,” except as to license obtained after April 2, 1892, was not in force until November 1 following, and has no influence on indictments for unlawful retailing found before the chapter took effect. 4. Criminal Procedure. Indictment. One count good. Conviction. A demurrer to an indictment containing one good count is properly overruled ; and so of a motion in arrest. But a conviction will not be sustained if the evidence fails to support the good count. 5. Chimin am Law. Construction of statute. Import of words. In construing a criminal statute, it is inadmissible to give to words a meaning they do not contain, in order to accomplish an object it may be supposed the law-maker had in view. 6. Same. Laws 1890, p. 71. Selling liquors. Receiving order. Accordingly, on the trial of an indictment under ? 2 of the act of 1890 (Laws, p. 71), the words “to sell any such liquors as are therein prohibited,” will not be held to include the mere receipt of an order for liquor to be thereafter sent into the forbidden territory, though it was so sent, and the defendant received pay for the same.