
    Daniel Garrard vs. The State of Mississippi.
    
      Murphy v. The State, 2 Cuskm. 590, cited, confirmed, and explained by the-court.
    
      There is nothing to show what the proof in this case was, and in the absence of something to bring this before the court, it will be presumed the verdict was correct.
    In error from the circuit court of Madison county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge.
    The facts are contained in the opinion of the court.
    
      A. II. Handy, for plaintiff in error.
    Glenn, attorney-general, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Yerger

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was indicted in the circuit court of Madison county, for selling spirituous liquors to a slave without the consent in writing of the master, owner, overseer, or employer. A motion to quash the indictment was overruled. So likewise was a motion in arrest of judgment. There was no motion made for a new trial, and consequently we have none of the evidence before us. The indictment in this case is similar to that in Murphy v. The State, which we held to be sufficient. The court, therefore, committed no error in refusing to quash the indictment, and overruling the motion in arrest of judgment. Murphy’s case was reversed, not because the indictment. was bad, but because the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused. The language employed by the court was this: “ In the present case, the specific article sold is named iu the indictment, and the court did not, therefore, err in refusing to quash the indictment or arrest the judgment. But the evidence'did not establish the guilt of the accused, and a new trial should have been granted.”

Applying the principles laid down in Murphy’s case to the present, we must affirm the judgment of the court below. Because in this, as in that case, the specific article sold is named in the indictment, and the court, therefore, did not err in refusing to quash the indictment or arrest the judgment; and, as in the present case, none of the evidence is before us. We must presume the verdict to be correct.

Let the judgment be affirmed.  