Opinion
No. 39972.
April 2, 1956.
1. Contempt — intoxicating liquors — evidence — Chancellor's findings — defendant guilty of violating injunction.
In contempt proceeding, evidence sustained Chancellor's finding that defendant was guilty of violating injunction restraining him from unlawfully possessing, storing, selling or giving away intoxicating liquor on premises of certain filling station.
Headnote as approved by McGehee, C.J.
APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Forrest County; LUTHER A. SMITH, Chancellor.
Wingo Finch, Hattiesburg, for appellant.
I. The Chancellor may not adjudge one in constructive contempt in the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, where the accused is clothed with the presumption of innocence until such proof is made. Brannon v. State, 202 Miss. 571, 29 So.2d 916; Ramsay v. Ramsay, 125 Miss. 715, 88 So. 280; Grace v. State, 108 Miss. 767, 67 So. 212.
John H. Price, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.
I. The guilt of appellant of criminal contempt of Court was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Forrest County adjudging the appellant to be guilty of contempt of court on a charge that he violated an injunction theretofore issued by the court enjoining him, his partners, servants, agents, employees, assigns, grantees, lessees, associates, and all other persons in privity with him, from unlawfully possessing, storing, keeping, selling, or giving away intoxicating liquors on premises known as Hilltop Service Station, and enjoining him from operating or using said premises as a place where intoxicating liquors are kept, possessed, sold, or given away in violation of the laws of the State. He was fined $1500 and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. He offered no proof in his own behalf. His sole contention is that the State's proof is insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
It will serve no good purpose to relate the evidence in detail. (Hn 1) It is sufficient to say that the proof, in our opinion, amply supports the learned chancellor's finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The decree of the court below is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.
Roberds, P.J., and Hall, Lee, and Ethridge, JJ., concur.