Campbell v. State

• Citation: 43 So. 743,150 Ala. 70
• Parties: CAMPBELL v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 18 April 1907
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

43 So. 743

150 Ala. 70

CAMPBELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 18, 1907

Appeal from Wilcox County Court; J. F. Foster, Judge.

John Campbell was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses under a contract to perform service, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The original affidavit in the county court was in the following language: "I have probable cause for believing and do believe that the offense of breaking a labor contract, said contract being in writing, made between John Campbell and R B. McNeil, dated June 11, 1904, has been committed in said county by the said John Campbell on, to wit, the 30th day of January, 1905." Demurrers were interposed, for that the contract alleged to have been broken is not shown to have been for any specified time; for that said alleged contract for aught that appears, was broken with the consent of R. B McNeil; for that, for aught that appears, the alleged breaking of the contract occurred after the expiration of the same; for that it is not alleged that defendant did not have sufficient excuse, etc. These demurrers being confessed, the solicitor was permitted by the court to amend his affidavit and as amended it reads as follows: "I have probable cause for believing and do believe that the offense of intending to injure or defraud his employer has been committed by John Campbell, who did, with intent to injure or defraud, enter into a contract in writing with Robert B. McNeil, his employer, for the performance of labor and service, and thereby obtained money and other personal property from said employer, to wit, a suit of clothes, for $12.75, and a watch and chain, for $2, and with like intent, and without just cause, and without refunding said money, or paying for said property, said John Campbell refused to perform said labor and service. Said offense has been committed by said John Campbell in said county on, to wit, the 30th day of January, 1905, and this affidavit is made amendatory of the affidavit made in this case from the 1st day of February, 1905." Demurrers were interposed to this affidavit, because it seeks to charge a different offense entirely from the one sought to be charged in the other affidavit, and because it seeks to charge an offense under a section of the Code which has been declared unconstitutional.

Charlie Ratcliff, being introduced as a witness for the state, testified that he had a conversation with defendant in July, 1905, in which defendant stated that he did not owe McNeil a cent, that he had worked out his time, and if McNeil let him have anything that was his lookout. The same testimony was given by Stevenson. Both statements were objected to, and motion made to exclude them, on the ground that they were in the nature of a confession. The oral charge of the court appears in the opinion. The defendant was convicted, and appeals.

N. D. Godbold, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

TYSON C.J.

The original affidavit or complaint did no more than to attempt to designate the offense by name, etc., which is entirely permissible in prosecutions for misdemeanors. Gen. Acts 1903 p. 283. Whether it sufficiently...