Conrad v. State
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Yazoo county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. On-August 25, 1892, appellant was indicted in the circuit court of Yazoo county, for the unlawful sale of liquor on August 23, 1892, the county having voted against the sale of liquor at an election'held under the local option law in August, 1888. He was convicted in February, 1893, and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for sixty days, and to pay a fine of $100. On the trial, it was shown that the…
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Yazoo county. Hon. J. B. Chrisman, Judge. On-August 25, 1892, appellant was indicted in the circuit court of Yazoo county, for the unlawful sale of liquor on August 23, 1892, the county having voted against the sale of liquor at an election'held under the local option law in August, 1888. He was convicted in February, 1893, and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for sixty days, and to pay a fine of $100. On the trial, it was shown that the defendant sold liquor in said county in May, 1892. Thereupon the defendant offered to introduce the report of the…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
The court properly instructed the jury that the act approved March 11, 1886, and commonly known as the local option law, was operative in Yazoo county at the daté of the *738alleged illegal sale of intoxicating liquors by the defendant. If, since the code of 1892 became operative (by § 1621 of which the courts are required to take judicial notice of the result of local option laws), it is admissible for one indicted to traverse the allegation that the act is in effect in the locality, the evidence introduced in the court below was conclusive.
By § 4 of the act, it is made the duty of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McDonald v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jay v. O'DonnellIndiana Supreme Court · 1912