Clonts v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 900. |
| Citation | 19 Ala.App. 130,95 So. 562 |
| Parties | CLONTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied March 6, 1923.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; A. P. Agee, Judge.
John Clonts was convicted of possessing whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Merrill & Allen, of Anniston, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appeal is on the record, there being no bill of exceptions, and presents but one question. The prosecution was begun in the county court by affidavit and warrant, which charged that defendant had in possession whisky in violation of law. On appeal to the circuit court the solicitor filed his information in which is charged that defendant did receive, accept delivery of, possess, or have in his possession prohibited liquors, etc. Demurrer was interposed to this information upon the ground of a departure, in that the affidavit had only charged possession, while the information charged other offenses. Demurrer was overruled, and this action of the court is here assigned as error. Our attention is called to the case of Echols v. State, 16 Ala. App. 138, 75 So. 814, wherein this court held that the addition of counts charging possession of more than a half gallon of liquor was a departure from a charge of selling, etc. And in Denham v. State, 17 Ala. App. 403, 86 So. 163, where we held that an affidavit, charging that defendant sold whisky, would not support an information charging other and distinct offenses against the prohibition law. These cases are not authorities in the case at bar. Receiving or accepting delivery of prohibited liquor would be impossible in the absence of possession. Therefore, receiving and accepting delivery of liquor, is, ex necessitate, embraced in a charge of possessing liquor.
A departure in pleading is where a previous ground in the pleading is abandoned and a new ground assumed. McAden v. Gibson, 5 Ala. 341. In the instant case there was no such abandonment, each alternate averment embracing a possession. The demurrer was properly overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smitherman v. State
... ... law and against the peace and dignity of the State of ... Alabama.' ... A ... comparison of the affidavit with the provisions of the ... statute will suffice to illustrate our view that the position ... here urged is not well taken. Clonts v. State, 19 ... Ala.App. 130, 95 So. 562; Waldrop v. State, 32 ... Ala.App. 496, 27 So.2d 264 ... The ... situation here is in no manner comparable to that in ... Hayes v. State, Ala.App., 31 So.2d 306, a case ... recently decided by this court in which the opinion was ... written ... ...
-
Melech v. State
...a different offense was not charged here. The possession of the shrimp was embraced in the charge of taking or catching them. Clonts v. State, 19 Ala.App. 130. Moreover, Section 56 of Title 8, Code 1940, provides that on appeal to the circuit court, or court of like jurisdiction, from a con......
-
Green v. State
... ... State, 17 Ala.App. 402, 86 So ... 163; Broglan v. State, 17 Ala.App. 403, 86 So. 164; ... Hall v. State, 17 Ala.App. 404, 86 So. 165; ... White v. State, 17 Ala.App. 404, 86 So. 165; ... Moore v. State, 165 Ala. 107, 51 So. 357; Miles ... v. State, 94 Ala. 108, 11 So. 403; Clonts v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 130, 95 So. 562 ... There ... remains two other insistences of error, but, as this case ... must be reversed (from what has been said), no detailed ... discussion of these two propositions need be had. We regard ... several utterances of the solicitor, in ... ...
- Edwards v. State