Horton v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appear from circuit court of Pontotoc county. Hon. Crauue .Oeayton, Judge. Joe ITorton was convicted of seduction and lie appeals. In the brief for appellee, counsel admits that there was no proof of venue in the court below, but takes the position that as no special objection or exception on that account was made in the court below, it cannot be urged for the first time in this court.
Read the full summary
Appear from circuit court of Pontotoc county. Hon. Crauue .Oeayton, Judge. Joe ITorton was convicted of seduction and lie appeals. In the brief for appellee, counsel admits that there was no proof of venue in the court below, but takes the position that as no special objection or exception on that account was made in the court below, it cannot be urged for the first time in this court. In support of his position, he cites the case of Burnett v. Bt'ate, 72 Miss. 994, 18 So. 482. The Burnett case was decided before the adoption of the code of 1906, section 4936 of the Code of 1906, providing…
1Opinion of the CourtHolden, J.
The appellant was convicted of the crime of seduction. The record fails to disclose that the state proved the venue *527of the offense, and for this jurisdictional error the judgment of the lower court must be reversed.
The contention by the state that, since no special exception was taken on account of the failure to prove the venue in the lower court, such error cannot be urged-for the first time here, is untenable. The Burnett Case, 72 Miss. 994, 18 So. 432, was a decision rendered under section 4370 of the Code of 1892, but this section appears as 4936 of the Code of 1906 (section 3212,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Quillen v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1914
- Monroe v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1912
- Burnett v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dodson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
- Crosby v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1928