Johnson v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the circuit court of Pike county. Smiley, J. The opinion of the court contains a statement of the case, Insisted that the indictment should have been quashed. In order to give the circuit court of Pike county jurisdiction to try the accused, the indictment must charge the offense to have been committed in that county. An indictment for larceny charging that the property was stolen in Amite county and carried into Pike county, is insufficient.
Read the full summary
Error to the circuit court of Pike county. Smiley, J. The opinion of the court contains a statement of the case, Insisted that the indictment should have been quashed. In order to give the circuit court of Pike county jurisdiction to try the accused, the indictment must charge the offense to have been committed in that county. An indictment for larceny charging that the property was stolen in Amite county and carried into Pike county, is insufficient. Citing Code of 1871, § 2755; Watson v. the State, 36 Miss. 609.
1Opinion of the Court
Peyton, C..J.:
At the September term of 1872, of the circuit court of Pike county, the grand jury of said county returned into said court a bill of indictment, charging “ that Sidney Johnson, late of the county of Amite, on the 2d day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, with force and arms, in the county and state aforesaid, did then and there feloniously steal, take and carry away one ox of the value of $30, of the goods and chattels and personal property of James Johnson, and did bring said property into said county of Pike, to wit: On the day and…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Coleman v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1903
- Spencer v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1922
- Walker v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1939
- Peaper v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Coggins v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.