Kidd v. State

Decision Date09 January 1888
Citation3 So. 442,83 Ala. 58
PartiesKIDD ET AL. v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; T. M. ARRINGTON, Judge.

The appellants, Robert N. Kidd and Charles S. Gammell, were indicted for petit larceny for feloniously taking and carrying away money of the value of $16, the property of one Jackson. The facts as set out by the bill of exceptions tended to show that Jackson boarded a train on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, on which the defendants were brakemen that while on said train, and somewhere between Birmingham and Montgomery, en route to Montgomery, about the station of Calera, in Shelby county, the defendants by force took from the person of said Jackson 16 silver dollars. The defense introduced evidence tending to show that the defendants did not know Jackson, that they had never seen him, and that they never came down on the same train with him to Montgomery. The defendants objected to the introduction of the evidence showing that they took the money from Jackson outside of the county of Montgomery. The court overruled the objection, and they duly excepted. At the request of the state, the court gave a charge in writing, which was as follows: "(2) The jury, in weighing the testimony, are authorized and should consider that the evidence of the alibi set up in this case rests upon the evidence of the defendants themselves, and of a brother of one of them and may consider the interest which said witnesses have in the result of the case; and if they do not believe said testimony, and if they do believe the testimony on the part of the state, they must convict the defendants." To the giving of which charge the defendants duly excepted. The defendants asked several charges in writing, which were refused, and to the refusal of each they reserved exceptions. The first charge asked by the defendants was to the effect that if the offense was committed outside of Montgomery, as alleged in the indictment, the defendants could not be convicted on that indictment. The second, after stating that the jury must be satisfied, beyond all reasonable doubt, that defendants brought the identical money, or a part thereof alleged to have been stolen from said Jackson, into Montgomery county, further says: "A doubt arising out of the evidence requires the jury to render a verdict of not guilty." The other charges had reference to the offense being committed in another county; and that the jury "are not authorized to presume that the defendants had the money alleged to be stolen in their possession, or under their control, independent of positive testimony of the same." The overruling of the motion to exclude the testimony offered by the state, the giving of the charges requested by the state, and the refusal to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1891
    ...568. (7) The court should have given an instruction on petit larceny. Com. v. Prewett, 82 Ky. 404; State v. Keeland, 90 Mo. 337; Kidd v. State, 83 Ala. 58. (8) The should have instructed the jury that, if the defendants compelled Ottoman to pay a debt due them, then there was no robbery. Re......
  • Milam v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1940
    ...v. Morrow, 213 Ala. 139, 104 So. 260, 40 A.L.R. 285. It is clear that §§ 4897, 4898 of the Code, and constructions thereof (Kidd v. State, 83 Ala. 58, 3 So. 442; Prestwood v. State, 87 So. 147, 6 So. Whizenant v. State, 71 Ala. 383; Thomas v. State, 114 Ala. 31, 21 So. 784; Bryant v. State,......
  • Peaper v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 26, 1972
    ...convenience' theory, the American decisions are of a single voice in reaching the same result. Lucas v. State, 62 Ala. 26; Kidd v. State, 83 Ala. 58, 3 So. 442; People v. Mellon, 40 Cal. 648; State v. Cummings, 33 Conn. 260; Brown v. United States, 35 App.D.C. 548; State v. Underwood, 49 Me......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1894
    ... ... Such is the rule in all criminal ... prosecutions, from the highest to the lowest. Coleman v ... State, 59 Ala. 52; Childs v. State, 58 Ala ... 349; Tatum v. State, 63 Ala. 147; Farrish v. State, ... Id. 164; Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 366; ... McKleroy v. State, 77 Ala. 95; Kidd v ... State, 83 Ala. 58, 3 So. 442; Lane v. State, 85 ... Ala. 11, 4 So. 730; Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 188, 7 ... So. 104; Little v. State, 89 Ala. 99, 8 So. 82; ... Pierson v. State, (Ala.) 13 So. 550. And in several ... of these rulings we have declared that the two phrases, ... "beyond a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT