64 So. 466 | Miss. | 1914
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant was convicted upon an indictment charging him with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The witness for the state, it seems, was arrested and confined in jail for the selling of the same liquor appellant was being tried for selling, and was released in consideration of his testimony against appellant, or more properly speaking, this was the theory of appellant. The trial court upon the objections of the district attorney, would not permit this line of investigation.
The learned attorney-general contends that the questions propounded by appellant’s counsel were not framed so as to develop this theory. This criticism of the questions actually propounded may be technically sound, but
Reversed cmd remanded.