Bradford v. State

• Decision Date: 28 June 1902
• Citation: 32 So. 742,134 Ala. 141
• Parties: BRADFORD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

32 So. 742

134 Ala. 141

BRADFORD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 28, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, St. Clair county; John Pelham, Judge.

James Bradford was convicted of perjury, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellee in this case was tried and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Jim Bradford, on his examination as a witness duly sworn to testify on the trial of the said Jim Bradford in the county court of St. Clair county, under a prosecution upon a charge of failing or refusing to work on the public road after legal notice, which said court had authority to administer such oath, falsely swore that on a certain morning, being the time or day when he had been warned to work the public road, he (the said Jim Bradford) was sick, and unable to work the road, or to go to the road to work; that he did not get up from bed until 9 or 10 o'clock; and that the reason he did not get up from bed sooner, and go to the road, was that he was sick,--the matters so sworn to being material, and the testimony of the said Jim Bradford being willfully and corruptly false, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." There was evidence introduced for the state tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged. The state introduced Mrs. McCormack, who testified that she was the wife of Will McCormack, who worked on the road the day the defendant was summoned to work on the road and failed to go; that on said day, when the defendant failed to work the road, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning, she saw the defendant take her husband's mule off, and he did not return until about 2 o'clock; that she did not see anything about the defendant that indicated that he was sick or unable to work; that she judged of the time of day at which the defendant got her husband's mule by the fact that it was only about a half hour after her husband had gone to work on the road. The defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence of this witness from the jury, upon the ground that it was illegal, irrelevant, and incompetent. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant duly excepted. The other facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Smith &amp Herring, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TYSON J.

The indictment is in the Code form, except only in the averment designating the character of the proceeding in which the oath was taken (form 67, p. 333, Cr. Code); and as to the proceeding with which the false oath is connected, it is sufficient to state its substance (section 5199, Cr. Code). The averment in the indictment in respect of the matter of proceeding in which the alleged false oath is connected is as follows: "On the trial of the said Jim Bradford in the county court of St. Clair county, under a prosecution upon a charge of failing or refusing to work on the public road after legal notice," etc. The point taken is there is no such offense known "as failing or refusing to work on the public road after legal notice," and a prosecution and trial founded upon an affidavit designating an offense in this language would be void; and therefore an indictment for perjury predicated upon testimony given in such a proceeding cannot be sustained, for the reason that the oath administered to defendant as a witness on that trial was unauthorized by law. The point would undoubtedly be well taken if the affidavit upon which the case was tried by the county court alleged no offense. Collins v. State, 78 Ala. 433. But the language quoted above did sufficiently...