State v. Jones
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. R. W- Williamson, Judge. Appellant, a constable, was indicted for extortion in office, by which, it was alleged, he obtained from Minerva Moore seven dollars. The language of the indictment is set forth in the opinion. Defendant demurred, on the gi’ound that it was not averred in the language of § 1081, code 1892, defining extortion in office, that the money was knowingly demanded or received without authority, etc.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Washington county. Hon. R. W- Williamson, Judge. Appellant, a constable, was indicted for extortion in office, by which, it was alleged, he obtained from Minerva Moore seven dollars. The language of the indictment is set forth in the opinion. Defendant demurred, on the gi’ound that it was not averred in the language of § 1081, code 1892, defining extortion in office, that the money was knowingly demanded or received without authority, etc. From a judgment sustaining the demurrer and quashing the indictment the state appeals. 1. Though § 1081, code 1892, defining…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The misdemeanor for which appellee stands charged in this indictment was an offense at common law, and, under § 1453, code 1892, may be described according to the common law or according to the statute. The indictment charges that the offense was committed “ unlawfully, corruptly, deceitfully, extorsi vely and by color of office,” etc. Deference to authorities will show at once that the offense is sufficiently chai’ged and described according to the common law.
Reversed, demurrer overruled and cause remanded.
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. BaconMississippi Supreme Court · 1899
- Tipton v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2010
- Frank Sanders Tipton v. State of MississippiMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
- Tipton v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2010