Opinion
No. 39971.
March 5, 1956.
1. Injunctions — contempt — violation of injunction against possession of intoxicating liquors — possession of "drinking whiskey" — addiction to drink as a defense.
It was no defense to criminal contempt prosecution for violating injunction against possession of intoxicating liquors that liquor found in defendant's possession had been "drinking whiskey" kept for his personal use and that his addiction to drinking rendered defendant unable to comply with injunctive decree.
Headnote as approved by Gillespie, J.
APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Forrest County; LUTHER A. SMITH, Chancellor.
D. Gary Sutherland, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
I. In a proceeding for criminal contempt, the accused must be proved to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Evans v. Evans, 193 Miss. 468, 9 So.2d 641; Hamblin v. Hamblin, 107 Miss. 113, 65 So. 113; Melvin v. State, 210 Miss. 132, 48 So.2d 916; 12 Am. Jur., Contempt, Secs. 75-6. John Price, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
I. The guilt of appellant of contempt of Court was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1; Miller v. State (Miss.), 35 So. 690; Walton v. State, 212 Miss. 270, 54 So.2d 391; Secs. 2613, 2634, Code 1942.
(Hn 1) At a trial for criminal contempt for violating an injunction against the possession of intoxicating liquors, it was proven that Adams had in his possession a quantity of intoxicating liquor. Appellant contends that the State failed to prove him guilty of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt because it was not shown that he was able to comply with the injunction; that it was shown by the testimony that the liquor he possessed was "drinking whiskey" kept for his personal use; that he was addicted to drinking whiskey, and was thereby unable to comply with the decree enjoining him from possessing liquor. This argument is unusual and unsound.
Affirmed.
Roberds, P.J., and Hall, Kyle and Holmes, JJ., concur.