Amos v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1899 |
| Citation | 26 So. 524,123 Ala. 50 |
| Parties | AMOS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Bibb county court; W. L. Pratt, Judge.
William Amos was convicted of the charge of obtaining merchandise by false pretenses, with intent to defraud, and appeals. Reversed.
The complaint charged that the said "Wm. Amos did falsely pretend to C. W. Brand, with intent to defraud, that he had money in hands of J. W. Moore, county superintendent of education of Chilton county, in said state, and by means of such false pretense obtained from said C. W. Brand merchandise to the amount of eighteen and 78/100 dollars against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." On the trial of the cause the state introduced C. W. Brand as a witness, who testified that on October 17, 1898, the defendant came to him and told him that he had some money in the hands of J. W. Moore,-about $50,-which was due him for a school he had taught in Chilton county, and that he (the defendant) wanted some goods; that thereupon, on such representation, the witness let the defendant have on that day good amounting to $5 or $6, and after that day he paid orders drawn by the defendant on him to the amount of $3 or $4. Upon this witness further testifying that he communicated with Mr. Moore, whom the defendant said had money belonging to him, the solicitor asked said witness whether or not he received a postal card from Mr. Moore about money due the defendant. To this question the defendant objected upon the ground that it was irrelevant, immaterial, and illegal, and that no predicate had been laid for the introduction of such evidence. The court overruled this objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the witness being handed a postal card, he identified it as the one received from Moore and further testified that the defendant was in his store at the time said card was received; that, after reading it, he told the defendant that Moore stated on said card that he did not owe the defendant anything, and then handed the card to him; "that, when the defendant read the card, he said 'Mr. Brand, I have lied to you about this matter, but please give me a chance."' The defendant objected to this testimony on the ground that it was illegal, irrelevant and incompetent, and that no predicate had been laid for the introduction thereof. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Thereupon the court, against the objection and exception of the defendant, allowed the state to introduce in evidence said postal card, which was dated Clanton, Ala., October 20, 1898, and which was addressed to C. W. Brand. Said postal card was in words and figures as follows: J. W. Moore, as a witness for the state, testified that he was superintendent of education in Chilton county until September 30, 1898, that after that time he was not such superintendent, and that on October 17, 1898, he had no money in his hands belonging to the defendant, and had had none in his hands after July 1, 1898, at which time he had a settlement with the defendant. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he did not make the representation as testified to by the witness Brand, but stated to him that he expected to get some money which he had earned. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant reque...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
... ... importance to his own interest, then they must find the ... defendant not guilty." ... Such ... instruction was the same as Charge 8 which is condemned in ... Leonard v. State, 150 Ala. 89, 43 So. 214; ... Watkins v. State, 133 Ala. 88, 92, 32 So. 627; ... Amos v. State, 123 Ala. 50, 54, 26 So. 524; ... Rogers v. State, 117 Ala. 9, 22 So. 666; 5 ... Mayfield's Digest, p. 140, § 264 ... Charge ... 40 is as follows: "The court charges the jury that if ... evidence of good character has been introduced you may ... consider the same in ... ...
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
... ... in the instant inquiry on the premise that no harmful effects ... inured to the rights of the accused ... We next ... consider the written instructions that were refused to ... appellant ... Charge ... numbered 3 was before the Supreme Court in Amos v. State, 123 ... Ala. 50, 26 So. 524, and in Harris v. State, 123 ... Ala. 69, 26 So. 515. In each of these cases it was held to be ... error to refuse it. See also, Diamond v. State, 15 ... Ala.App. 33, 72 So. 558 ... Refused Charge 5 was approved in Brown v. State, 118 ... ...
-
Warren v. State
...a fact for the consideration of the jury, has been often approved and followed. See Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 446, 23 So. 40; Amos v. State, 123 Ala. 50, 26 So. 524; Neilson v. State, 146 Ala. 683, 40 So. Bailey v. State, 168 Ala. 4, 53 So. 296, 390. In Bailey's Case, supra, the question wa......
-
Kabase v. State
...on authority of Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284, has been subsequently and repeatedly condemned as argumentative. Amos v. State, 123 Ala. 50, 26 So. 524; Montgomery v. State, 169 Ala. 12, 53 So. 991; McCarty v. State, 22 Ala.App. 62, 112 So. 184; Millhouse v. State, 235 Ala. 85, 8......