Hogsett v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to Rankin circuit court. Watts, J. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the facts of the case. The court erred in permitting witness Hudnall to testify as to the statement of Lemly to witness that the wagon used for hauling the cotton alleged to be stolen was his, and that accused was the driver hired by him. Lemly being a competent witness, evidence of his statement was clearly open to all the objections to hearsay.
Read the full summary
Error to Rankin circuit court. Watts, J. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the facts of the case. The court erred in permitting witness Hudnall to testify as to the statement of Lemly to witness that the wagon used for hauling the cotton alleged to be stolen was his, and that accused was the driver hired by him. Lemly being a competent witness, evidence of his statement was clearly open to all the objections to hearsay. In the first charge for* the state, the court erred in assuming that plaintiff in error had confessed his guilt. There is no confession given in…
1Opinion of the Court
Handy, J.:
The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Rankin county, for the larceny of two bales of cotton.
The evidence on which the conviction was founded is in substance as follows: Joseph Hudnall testified that, about 11 or 12 o’clock at night, he was informed there was a noise at the gin-house on his father’s plantation, and he supposed some one was stealing cotton; that he made haste and proceeded to the gin-house, and pursued a wagon and overtook it about half a mile from the gin-house, and it contained two bales of cotton, which he identified as his…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harper v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1903
- Thompson v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1895
- Harper v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1949
- Flemings v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1942
- Shines v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872