Summary
In Odom v. State, 130 Miss. 643, 94 So. 233 (1922) the question raised by the demurrer to the indictment was whether it sufficiently charged that the party defrauded was moved to depart with the money and goods by false representation.
Summary of this case from Neece v. StateOpinion
No. 6924.
Decided April 26, 1922.
Intoxicating Liquor — Possession — Indictment.
Since the amendment of the first and second called session of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, the indictment in question must charge that the possession of intoxicating liquor was for the purpose of sale, and where this was not the case, the judgment must be reversed and the cause dismissed.
Appeal from the District Court of Denton. Tried below before the Honorable C.R. Pearman.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor; penalty, one year imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The opinion states the case.
No brief on file for appellant.
R.G. Storey, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Appellant was convicted under an indictment charging the possession of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment assessed at one year confinement in the penitentiary.
The prosecution was begun under the law as it existed prior to the amendment of the 1st and 2d Called Sessions of the Thirty-seventh Legislature, page 233. By that amendment the possession of intoxicating liquor, to be a violation of the law, must be so possessed for the purpose of sale. Under many cases heretofore decided since the amendment in question this court has held that the indictment in the present form does not charge a violation of the present law.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.