TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Triplett v. State

James Triplett v. State of Mississippi

Triplett v. State, 80 Miss. 379 (1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Mississippi Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1902
Judges
Oalhoon
Citations
80 Miss. 379
Cited by 4
Syllabus
1. Enticing Servants. Code 1892, 1 1068: Laws 1900, p. 140. Affidavit. An affidavit intended to charge an offense, under code 1892, § 1068, as amended, laws 1900, p. 140, making it unlawful to interfere with or entice away a laborer or renter under certain .circumstances, is fatally defective if it fail to aver: (a) That the interference or enticing away was willful; or, (b) That the person interfered with or enticed away was a laborer or renter; or, (c) That he was a laborer or renter by contract for a specified time; or, (d) That he was interfered with or enticed away before the expiration of such contract; or, (e) That the interference or enticing away was without the consent of the employer or landlord; or, (/) The facts constituting the interference or enticing away. 2. Criminal Procedure.. Circuit cov/rt. Appeal from justices' cou/rt. Amendment. Code 1892, g 1438. A defective affidavit, intended to charge an offense, upon which the defendant has been convicted by a justice of the peace, can be amended in the circuit court, under code 1892, \ 1438, authorizing the same, upon appeal from the conviction.
Summary
From the circuit court of Winston county. Hon. G-uion Q. Hall, Judge. Triplett, appellant, was defendant in the court below; being convicted there of violating § 1058, code 1892, as amended by laws 1900, p. 140, he appealed to the supreme court. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court. The court below should have sustained the demurrer to the affidavit. It charges no ofíense. It is fatally defective. 1. It does not charge that the acts complained of was without the consent of the employer. 2. It does not charge that the persons interferred with were renters or laborers. 3. It does not charge that the (supposed) renters or laborers were contracted with for a specified time. 4. It does not show that the interference complained of was before the expiration of the (supposed) contract. 5. It does not charge that the interference was willfully done. 6. It does not aver the facts constituting the (supposed) interference. The facts and circumstances which go to make up the offense defined in the statute, the necessary elements constituting the crime, must be charged and proved as laid before a conviction. Code 1892, § 1068; Laws 1900, p. 140; Ward v. State, 70 Miss., 245; Jackson v. State, 13 So. itep., 935. The word “unlawfully,” inserted in the affidavit by way of amendment, did not cure the defects in the affidavit. submitted the case without argument.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Oalhoon

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Oalhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The affidavit in this case, made before a justice of the peace, is based on ch. 102 of the laws of 1900, which provides: “That § 1068 of the code of 1892 be amended so as to read as follows: “If any person shall willfully interfere with, entice away, knowingly employ, or induce a laborer or renter who has contracted with another for a specific time to leave his employer or the leased premises, before the expiration of his contract without the consent of the employer or landlord, he shall, upon conviction, be fined,” etc. The original affidavit is this: “Personally appeared before me,” etc. “O. B. Coleman, who makes affidavit that on,” etc., “Jim Triplett did interfere with his hands, *381 by starting to move them off at nigbt, against the peace and dignity/’ etc. The circuit court permitted, and had inserted in the affidavit, an amendment which put the word “unlawfully” just before the word “interfere.” Still, as amended, it is fatally defective. The statutory word “willfully” is essential to this charge. It does not show whether the “hands'” interferred with were “laborers” or “renters,” nor whether they were such by contract for a “specified time,” nor whether the interference was “before the expiration of such contract,” nor that it was “without the consent of the employer or landlord,” nor in what the interference was. “Starting to move” people is all right, if they want to be moved. Under code, § 1438, a proper affidavit may be constructed by amendment which will disclose the “nature and cause” of the accusation. Coulter v. State, 75 Miss., 356 ( 22 So., 872 ).

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 11925: 11928: 11963: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Henry v. State154 So. 2d 289 (Miss. 1963)
  2. Williams v. State94 So. 882 (Miss. 1922)
  3. Moran v. State102 So. 388 (Miss. 1925)
  4. Sullivan v. State117 So. 374 (Miss. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Henry v. State154 So. 2d 289 (Miss. 1963)
  2. Sullivan v. State117 So. 374 (Miss. 1928)
  3. Moran v. State102 So. 388 (Miss. 1925)
  4. Williams v. State94 So. 882 (Miss. 1922)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Coulter v. State, 75 Miss. 356 (1897) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list