Curlee v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 261 |
| Parties | CURLEE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Leon McCord, Judge.
R.M Curlee was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Smoot & Mullins, of Wetumpka, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The only statutes pertinent to the questions presented on this appeal that have been called to our attention, or that we have been able to find, are section 763 of the Code of 1907, and section 7083 of the Code, as amended by the act approved April 22, 1911 (Acts 1911, p. 613). The first mentioned of these statutes provides:
Section 7083, as amended, in so far as is here pertinent, provides that:
"Any person, firm or corporation *** who fails and refuses, without just cause and legal excuse, to cleanse and disinfect any infected or infested place in which live stock are kept, when directed or requested by the state live stock sanitary board, the state verterinarian or assistants, so to do, pursuant to the rules and regulations established by said state live stock sanitary board, or who resists or interferes with such board, state verterinarian, or assistants, or state live stock inspector, in the execution of his or their duties, or who otherwise violates any of the quarantine laws of this state for live stock, or who fails or refuses without just cause or legal excuse to perform any of the duties required of him by such laws, or who impedes or prevents, or attempts to so impede or prevent the execution of such laws, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," etc.
The indictment charges that:
The defendant, "a person owning or having in charge cattle infected with or exposed to the infection of ticks, to wit, Margaropus annulatus (Boophilus annulatus) without just cause or legal excuse, and after having been notified so to do by an officer or inspector commissioned by the live stock sanitary board, did fail to dip...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kreutner v. State
...constitutional right of trial by jury, the law requires the court to resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant. As was said in Curlee v. State, 75 So. 268, by Brown, speaking for the court: "The statute, which deprives the defendant of the constitutional right of trial by jury upon failur......
-
McCaig v. State
... ... of the statute. If it was a question as to whether the act of ... the defendant that is supposed to effect the waiver was ... within the letter and spirit of the statute, and there was ... reasonable doubt as to whether the act was within the ... statute, as in Curlee's Case, the doubt would be resolved ... in favor of the right of trial by jury. Curlee v ... State, 75 So. 268. Here there is no doubt as to the fact ... that the defendant failed to comply with the requirements of ... the statute in making the demand or request for jury trial, ... and the ... ...
-
Posey v. State
... ... 621, 71 So. 75; Bivins v. City of ... Montgomery, 13 Ala.App. 641, 69 So. 224; Wright v ... State, 3 Ala.App. 140, 57 So. 1023; Campbell v ... State, 4 Ala.App. 104, 58 So. 125; Jordan v ... State, 5 Ala.App. 229, 59 So. 710; Oliver v ... State, 16 Ala.App. 533, 79 So. 313; Curlee v ... State, 16 Ala.App. 62, 75 So. 268; Horn v ... State (4 Div. 605) 84 So. 883. The prosecution is ... sustained by virtue of section 2 of the act of the ... Legislature approved September 22, 1915, supra, and not by ... virtue of the rule of the court of county commissioners ... fixing ... ...
-
Oliver v. State
...7 Ala.App. 78, 61 So. 485; McLain v. State, 72 So. 511; Porter v. State, 72 So. 776; Brannon v. State, 76 So. 991. As was said in Curlee v. State, 75 So. 268: "The indictment cannot be sustained on the theory the alleged acts of the defendant were a violation of 'rules and regulations' adop......