The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-07-03
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
APRIL TERM, 1850.

w. j. ELLzY and A. j. NORTON,
| VS.
THE STATE.
Appeal from the Circuit Court Of Lin
coin county, Hon. s. S. Calhoon, Judge.
Appellants were indicted fol- Il conspir'
acy to cheat and defraud one Hemphill'
The Indictment charged that appellants
''unlawmlly, falsely, fraudulcntly and de-
ceitfully did conspire, combine, confederate
and agree together, unlawfully and by in
direct means to obtain, acquire and get In
to their hands and possession, of and from
one II. b. Hemphill, certain personal prop
crty, to-wit: mentioning iD, and to cheat
and defraud the said r.. b. Hemphill Of the
personal property aforesaid," etc. The
evidence showed that Hemphill had given
deed of trust to Millsaps on horse, three
head of cattle, and his crop of cotton and
corn. On it balance of $3O7O was due
and upaid. Norton's wife had claim
against Hemphill for $lO4, being the bal
ance of $40O due on the purchase of tract
of land by Hemphill. Norton procured an
assignment from Millsaps of the deed OF
trust, on the false representation that
Hemphil was about to run off and dispose
of said personal property. The trustee in
the deed of trust resigned, and Norton ap-
pointed Ellzey in his stead. The latter ut
once demanded the balance due from Hemp
hill who had no money, but offered to turn
over more than sufficieney of the cotton
embraced in the deed of trust to pay it.
The proposition was refused, and EllZey
seized the cotton, corn, horse and cattle,
and advertised the same for sale. Before
the sale Hemphill offered to pay the money
due on the deed of trust, which Ellzey de-
clined to take upon the ground that he eX-
pected that writ of garnishment would
be served on him, at the instance of Nor
ton. The sale was made, which produced
1914 more than the debt and cost of sale.
The writ of punishment was issued and
served upon Ellzey, based upon Judgment
in favor of Mrs. Norton, rendered after
the offer of Himphill to pay the balance due
on the deed of trust. Ellzey answered
that he owed Hcmphll the $54. The land
which Mrs. Norton had sold to Hemphill
was also embraced in said deed Of trust,
and was sold by Ellzy Hereunder, and
bought in by Norton; so the result of these
proceedings was that Norton got the land
back after $500 of the $40O purchase money
had been paid. The $54 excess over the
balance due on the deed of trust, for which
the property was sold hereunder, Norton
applied to the balance due on the land. All
the personal property sold was exempt
except the cotton. A motion to
quash the indictment was overruled, and a
trial was had, resulting in conviction.
j. F. Sessions for appellants.
r.. c. Catchings, Attorney General, for
the State.
GEORGE, CD,
Held
l. We regard the indictments as sufficient.
2. The evidence fully justified the verdict.
3. A conspiracy is defined to be con-
federacy of two or more persons to accom-
plish some unlawful purpose, or a lawful
purpose by unlawful means.
4. Both the end sought to be attained
here = the application of the exempt prop
erty to HemphilPs debts, and the means
the selling of more property under the
deed of trust than was necessary to pay
the debt secured by it in order to produce
a surplus for the punishment process,
we're unlawful. The circumstances clearly
show that the plaintiffs in error acted in
concert and under an agreement to bring
ibOut the result above condemned.
Judgment affirmed.