Hattiesburg daily progress. (Hattiesburg, Miss.) 18??-1909, 1903-02-25
AT SESSION TUESDAY EVENING
Interesting Point of Law Decided in
Case of J. c. Burgess VS.. State,
AS TO COUNTERFEIT MONEY BEING
Manufactured And Passed-Other
Points of Law.
Special to the Daily Progress

jackson, Feb. 25.-At its sitting
Tuesday evening the supreme court
decided that deputy sheriff is also
defacto deputy tax collector, even
though he has never been regularly
sworn into Office, and that he has full
authority to discharge all of the duties
Of his principal.
The point was brought up in the
case Of Mrs. Laura Mckee VS.. F. S.
Swain, from the chancery court of
Lincoln county, where in the validity
Of q sherifP's deed to certain lands VISA
brought into question. Ten days be-
fore the annual tax sale Of which the
tract of land in question was to be
cold Charles McNair, the sheriff and
tax collector Of the county, died and
the sale was conducted by his chief
deputy, r. Q. Applewhite, who sold
the land and made a sheriff's deed
signing the name of the dead sheriff
to the instrument, and recording his
own name as deputy, an office he had
held for two years, although he had
never taken the oath of office. In
rendering the decision of the court
Chief Justice Winfield declared that
the deed was valid, and by general
recognition as being in charge of the
Office the deputy was qualified to
convey title.
An interesting and highly inn
portant point of law was decided in
the case of J. A. Burgess VS.. state,
from the circuit court of Pike county,
and it is deserving of especial mention
becuase Of the fact that the same point
OF law was involved in the celebrated
Rush embezzlement case recently tried
in jackson.
Burgess was indicted by the grand
jury for manufacturing and passing
counterfeit money. Before the trial
was commenced the defense asked that
the district attorney elect on which
count of the indictment he would pro-
ceed. in other words, whether the
prisoner was to be tried for making
counterfeit money, or passing the
spurious coin. The prosecutor declin-
ed to do so, stating that he would
elect the count after the evidence was
concluded, and Judge Powell sustain
ed his position. Exceptions were
taken and this was the chief ground
set up by the defense at the supreme
court hearing. 1t will be remembered
that Hon. r. N. Miller made the
same point before Judge Powell dur
ing the preliminaries of the Rush
trial, and was overruled.
When the Burgess trial was con-
cluded the district attorney elected to
proceed on the count charging the
defendant with passing counterfeit
coin. During the hearing it had
been shown that the prisoner had at
one time in his possession of electro
plating outfit, and with this outfit he
could have made counterfeit money
Chief Justice Whitfield read the
opinion Of the court, in which he
stated that the district attorney should
have been compelled to elect the
count before the trial was commenced
that distinct offenses committed al
various times should not be included
in the same indictment, and it ii
likely to do the defendant grave In
justice, and that the softest way to
conduct the prosecution is the fail
way.
The point has an important bearing
on certain propositions, and the decis
ion will doubtless have the effect O
radical changes throughout the stat
in the form of drawing Indictment
when prisoner is charged with NOR
than one offense.