Chilton v. State
| Decision Date | 10 January 1895 |
| Citation | 16 So. 797,105 Ala. 98 |
| Parties | CHILTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.
Henry Chilton was convicted of larceny from the person, and appeals. Reversed.
John W A. Sanford, Jr., for appellant.
Wm. C Fetts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted and convicted of the larceny of money from the person of one Lawyer Bennett. On the trial, after Bennett had testified to the circumstance of the larceny, and had identified the defendant as one of the guilty parties the state introduced one Murphy as a witness, who was an officer, and had arrested the defendant. The state, by its solicitor, asked this witness if Bennett gave him the name of the defendant as the person who had committed the larceny. The witness answered this question in the negative. The error in permitting the question to be answered against the objection of the defendant is shown affirmatively to have been without injury. The state then inquired of the witness whether Bennett gave a description of the party who had committed the offense, and, if so, what it was. The defendant objected to each of these questions. The court overruled the objection, and the witness answered, "Yes, and the description tallied with the defendant." The defendant moved to exclude the answer that "the description tallied with the defendant," which motion, by the court was overruled. The objection to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Baldwin
...3 Dougl. 242, 26 E. C. L. 95; Ellicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412, 9 U. S. L. Ed. 475; Fallin v. State, 83 Ala. 5, 3 So. 525; Chilton v. State, 105 Ala. 98, 16 So. 797; People v. Johnson, 91 Cal. 295, 27 P. 663; People v. Schmitt, 106 Cal. 48, 39 P. 204; Shamp v. White, 106 Cal. 220, 39 P. 537; ......
-
The State v. Baldwin
...3 Dougl. 242, 26 E. C. L. 95; Ellicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412, 9 U.S. (L. Ed.) 475; Fallin v. State, 83 Ala. 5, 3 So. 525; Chilton v. State, 105 Ala. 98, 16 So. 797; People v. Johnson, 91 Cal. 265, 27 P. People v. Schmitt, 106 Cal. 48, 39 P. 204; Shamp v. White, 106 Cal. 220, 39 P. 537; Conn......
-
Leverett v. State
... ... 581] he may say, if he knows, ... this is the same article, but, if his knowledge of the ... article is confined to information obtained from descriptions ... made by others, if he says "this is the article," ... such statement is a conclusion, based on hearsay and is ... incompetent. Chilton v. State, 105 Ala. 98, 16 So ... 797; 4 Michie's Digest, 206, § 285 ... Facts ... having been testified to from which the jury could conclude ... that the larceny had been committed, and the state having ... introduced evidence describing the goods, and goods ... themselves being ... ...
-
Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Cochran
... ... doctrine of the common law in respect to trespasses by and ... upon domestic animals running at large has never prevailed in ... this state. Uninclosed lands are regarded as common pasture, ... and the owner of domestic animals found thereon is entitled ... to demand reasonable care and ... ...