Brandon v. State
Decision Date | 17 March 1936 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 757 |
Citation | 173 So. 240,27 Ala.App. 321 |
Parties | BRANDON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Reversed after Mandate Nov. 3, 1936
Motion to Set Aside Order Striking Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1937
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.F. Thompson, Judge.
Forney W. Brandon was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Conforming to answer to certified question in (6 Div. 757) 173 So. 238.
Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Brandon v. State (6 Div 990) 173 So. 251.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Brandon v. State (6 Div 97) 173 So. 253.
Ernest Matthews, Clarence Mullins, and John D Hill, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
In each count of the indictment in this case, this appellant was designated as "Deputy Circuit Clerk of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama."
It is without dispute that said purported office being held by appellant was under the provisions of the act of the Legislature approved February 3, 1923, Gen.Acts 1923, p. 15; the title to which reads as follows: "To create the office of Deputy Circuit Clerk of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court in all counties of the State having a population of more than two hundred thousand, according to the last, or any subsequent Federal census; to provide for the appointment of such officer and the election of his successor; to prescribe the duties, authorities and to fix the compensation of such Deputy Circuit Clerk."
The constitutionality and validity of said act was questioned, by demurrer, and otherwise, in the court below, and to adverse rulings of the trial court, in this connection, due and legal exceptions were reserved, and on this appeal a threshold inquiry is whether there was any such office in Jefferson county as deputy circuit clerk of the criminal division of the Tenth judicial circuit of Alabama at the time it is alleged appellant converted the funds set out in the indictment.
In our initial consideration of the foregoing point of decision, this court was unanimously of the opinion that the act in question was a nullity and violative of sections 106 and 110 of the Constitution. Not being authorized to so declare, and hold, this court proceeded under section 7322 of the Code to submit the question involving the validity of said Statute to the Supreme Court as therein provided.
The pertinent provisions of section 7322, supra, reads as follows:
In this connection, the following proceedings were had:
In response to the foregoing, the Supreme Court transmitted to this court the result of their determination, and in a decision rendered the following opinion through Mr. Justice BROWN, which as therein stated, was concurred in by all the Justices of the Supreme Court.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milam v. State
... ... neither descriptive of the fact or degree of the crime nor ... material to the exercise of jurisdiction ... Several ... recent decisions touching the subject of a variance are cited ... by the appellant. They are without application to the case at ... bar. In Brandon v. State, 27 Ala.App. 321, 173 So ... 240, 245, the variance was declared because the indictment ... charged embezzlement of funds as that of a particular ... officer, and the evidence showed there was no such office ... under the statute, and no such officer was "known to the ... law as a de ... ...
-
Jones v. Conradi
... ... argue that the trial court erred in ruling that § 17-2-8 has been repealed, and they assert that § 17-2-8 is properly construed as having a state-wide applicability. The circuit clerks argue that what is now § 17-2-8 was repealed by implication years ago, and they suggest that, in any event, ... 686--providing literally for a deputy circuit clerk in "all counties" that met its requirements--in Brandon v. State, 233 Ala. 1, 173 So. 238 (1936), this Court clearly indicated that it was intended to be a local law, "applicable to the Bessemer Division." ... ...
- Brandon v. State
-
Burch v. State
... ... to opposing counsel a copy of the application for rehearing ... and brief in support within fifteen days thereof will not ... suffice. Service thereof, under Rule 38, must be had within ... the allotted fifteen days.' See also Brandon v ... State, 27 Ala.App. 321, 173 So. 240, certiorari denied, ... 233 Ala. 600, 173 So. 253 ... The ... motion to strike the State's application for writ of ... certiorari to the Court of Appeals is granted and said ... application is hereby stricken ... Application ... ...