Johnson v. State

1. Gaming. Former conviction. State and toiun laws. Conviction before the mayor of a town tinder an ordinance against gaming is not a bar to a subsequent indictment under the State law for the act for which he was convicted. 2. Same. Jurisdiction. Justice of the peace.. Jurisdiction to try a charge of gaming is conferred on justices of the peace by Code 1880, § 2216, and is not taken away by § 2858 of the same Code, which is a mere direction to the officers named.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee County. Hon. J. A. Green, Judge. Burwell Johnson was tried and convicted before the mayor of the incorporated town of Tupelo under an ordinance against gaming. He was afterwards indicted under the State law for the same offence, and pleaded the former conviction in bar. The court below held that the mayor as justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the offence of gaming, and that conviction under the town ordinance was no bar. 1. No one can be twice tried for the same offence. Const. art. 1, § 5. By act of July 20, 1870, under Const, art. 1, § 31, the Mayor’s Court was established in Tupelo. By State law the town was chartered (Acts 1870, pp. 395, 401), and authorized to enact ordinances. Under State law the accused has been once therefore convicted and punished. 2. Plainly Code 1880, § 2858, does not deprive justices of the peace of jurisdiction in cases of gaining, given by another section of the Code, but it is merely directory to the officers whom it names. If the former conviction was under the town ordinance, it was no bar to the indictment under the State law, and if by a justice of the peace, he had no jurisdiction. Code 1880, § 2858. He could only bind the party over to the Circuit Court.