Appeal from the circuit court of Madison county.

Hon. W. A. Henet, Judge.

Maggie Cage was convicted of the unlawful sale of liquors and appeals.

This is an appeal from a conviction of a violation of the liquor laws of the state. Section 1762 of the Code of 1906, referred to in the opinion, is as follows: “1762. On the trial of all prosecutions for the violation of law by the sale or giving away of liquors, bitters, or drinks, the state shall not be confined to the proof of a single violation, hut may give in evidence any one or more offenses of the same character committed anterior to the day laid in the indictment or in the affidavit, and not barred by the statute of limitations; but in such case, after conviction or acquittal on the merits, the accused shall not again be liable to prosecution for any offense of the same character committed anterior to the day laid in the indictment or in the affidavit.”

Onr contention in this ease is:

First, that section 1762 of the Code of 1906, is unconstitutional as violative of section 26 of the Constitution of 1890.

Second, that there was no date laid in the indictment of the commission of the offense and consequently the court could not permit separate violations of the law to he given in evidence.

As to our first point as to the unconstitutionality of section 1762 of the Code, we have to say that where evidence of several offenses are permitted to be given in evidence, without any mention in the indictment as to the time and place of the commission of either of them, surely the defendant is not apprised of the nature and cause of the accusation made against him as required by said section 26 of the constitution. This court has decided that this section of the constitution was intended to secure “to the accused such a specific description of the offense as will enable him to make preparation for his trial,” and also such identification of the offense that he may be insured against a subsequent prosecution therefor. See Noolan v. State, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 562; Murphey v. State, 24 Miss. 590; Gerrard v. State, 25 Miss. 469; Biggs v. State, 26 Miss. 51; Norris v. State, 33 Miss. 373; Netvcomb v. State, 37 Miss. 383; Williams v. State, 42 Miss. 328; Biley v. State, 43 Miss. 397; Thompson v. State, 51 Miss. 353.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress