Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Draughn Waller, for appellant. This case was first tried in the justice court of Beat 3, Forrest county, and from that justice court it was appealed to the circuit court of said county, and in the trial of said cause the state failed to introduce any testimony to show or to prove jurisdiction. We submit that this court will reverse this cause for lack of testimony on the question of jurisdiction. This court has repeatedly held that venue is a jurisdictional question and may be raised for the first time in the supreme court. See Monroe v. State, 103 Miss. 759, 60 So. 773; Ellzey v. State, 110 Miss. 502, 70 So. 579; Kyle v. Calhoun City, 123 Miss. 542, 86 So. 340; Norwood v. State, 129 Miss. 813, 93 So. 354; Pickle v. State, 102 So. 4; O'Neil v. State, 140 Miss. 182, 105 So. 496; Webb v. State, 108 So. 442. We submit, therefore, the cause for the consideration of the court.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Draughn Waller, for appellant. This case was first tried in the justice court of Beat 3, Forrest county, and from that justice court it was appealed to the circuit court of said county, and in the trial of said cause the state failed to introduce any testimony to show or to prove jurisdiction. We submit that this court will reverse this cause for lack of testimony on the question of jurisdiction. This court has repeatedly held that venue is a jurisdictional question and may be raised for the first time in the supreme court. See Monroe v. State, 103 Miss. 759, 60 So. 773; Ellzey v. State, 110 Miss. 502, 70 So. 579; Kyle v. Calhoun City, 123 Miss. 542, 86 So. 340; Norwood v. State, 129 Miss. 813, 93 So. 354; Pickle v. State, 102 So. 4; O'Neil v. State, 140 Miss. 182, 105 So. 496; Webb v. State, 108 So. 442. We submit, therefore, the cause for the consideration of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

SAUCIER v. STATE. Corpus Juris-Cyc. References: Criminal Law, 16 C.J., p. 530, n. 61.

CRIMINAL LAW. Failure of evidence to disclose that offense was committed in district where case originated held fatal to trial court's jurisdiction.

Failure of evidence to disclose that offense was committed in district of magistrate in whose court case originated held fatal to trial court's jurisdiction.

SMITH, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The failure of the evidence to disclose that the offense for which the appellant was tried was committed in the district of the magistrate in whose court the case originated is fatal, as the attorney-general admits, to the jurisdiction of the court below.

Reversed and remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

SAUCIER v. STATE
(Nov 29, 1926)