Lemly v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
Prom the circuit court of the-first district of Hinds county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. Appellant, a druggist in Hinds county, has been convicted upon an indictment charging an unlawful sale of vinous and spirituous liquors — namely, alcohol.
Read the full summary
Prom the circuit court of the-first district of Hinds county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. Appellant, a druggist in Hinds county, has been convicted upon an indictment charging an unlawful sale of vinous and spirituous liquors — namely, alcohol. The “local option” law of 1886 not being in force in Hinds county, the legality of the sale is referable to the general law contained in chapter 39, code 1880. The defense most relied on was that alcohol is not “vinous or spirituous liquor,” and its sale not within the prohibition of the said chapter. The indictment charges no offense. The word “…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.
The indictment does not charge an offense against the law of this state. Alcohol, the subject of the sale, is not vinous or spirituous liquor within the meaning of the statutes in force when the sale was made. Alcohol is an ingredient or quality of vinous and spirituous liquor of all kinds, but alcohol, specifically, is neither the one nor the other. It is a distinct thing. It is the intoxicating principle of vinous and spirituous liquors, but is not such liquor in the contempla*243tion of the statutes adopted in this state prior to March 11, 1886. Those statutes did not employ the terms…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hall v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1928
- Payne v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1921