Downey v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1897 |
| Parties | DOWNEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Bridgeport; S.W. Tate, Judge.
Joe Downey was convicted of gaming, and appeals. Reversed.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for betting at a game of cards at "an outhouse where people resort." The facts of the case showing the rulings of the court upon the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The court, at the request of the state, gave to the jury the following written charge: "An unoccupied store house, if resorted to by persons for the purpose of playing cards comes within the provisions of the statute against playing cards at an outhouse where people resort, and it would not be material whether such house was kept locked by the owner." To the giving of this charge the defendant duly excepted, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of the following charges requested by him: (1) "A house, to be an outhouse, within the statute, is a house standing aloof from other houses unoccupied, and where the public can enter to play cards; and it must be shown that they have entered and played on more than one occasion before it can be said to be an 'outhouse' where people resort." (2) (3) "A house, to be an 'outhouse,' within the statute against gaming, must be an unoccupied house, standing aloof from occupied houses, where the public may obtain ingress and egress, at liberty, and where persons have gone on more occasions than one to play cards." (9) "If the jury believe the evidence in this case, they should find the defendant not guilty." (10) "Something more is necessary in gaming cards to make a house an outhouse, within the statute, than that it is unoccupied and stands aloof from other houses."
J. E Brown, for appellant.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted for betting at a game played with cards at "an outhouse where people resort." The evidence showed that the playing took place in a "store house" not then used as a house for business, or any ostensible purpose. There was no error in admitting the evidence of the various witnesses who testified to playing cards with the defendant in the building at different times. This evidence was competent to sustain the charge that the building was an outhouse where people resort. The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked by the solicitor: "You have followed this business [gambling] for a livelihood for a long time?" Counsel for the defendant objected to the question, and the objection was overruled. The objection is general, and, as a general rule, such objections are unavailable, as the trial court is not bound to "cast about" for the reasons to maintain the objection; but when the evidence is patently objectionable and illegal, a general objection may be sufficient. The only purpose of such evidence was to affect the character or reputation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Antwerp v. State
...of a witness, responsive to a question, and claim the benefit of it, if favorable, and discard it if prejudicial." Downey v. State, 115 Ala. 108, 111, 22 So. 479, 480 (1896); 6A Alabama Digest, Criminal Law, The question itself was objectionable but no objection was made until after the ans......
-
Sharp v. State
... ... If the question is such that material and relevant ... testimony may be the answer, and when answered the testimony ... is not responsive thereto, or is immaterial and illegal, ... motion must then be made for the exclusion of the answer ... Pope v. State, 168 Ala. 33, 53 So. 292; Downey ... v. State, 115 Ala. 108, 22 So. 479; Ellis v ... State, 105 Ala. 72, 17 So. 119; Wright v ... State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Washington v ... State, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; West Pratt Co. v ... Andrews, 150 Ala. 368, 376, 43 So. 348; Rutledge v ... Rowland, 167 Ala. 114, 49 So. 461; ... ...
-
Parrish v. State
...to the question. This was certainly all the defendant could ask, under the facts as shown by this bill of exceptions. Downey v. State, 115 Ala. 108, 112, 22 So. 479. police officer was properly allowed to testify that the defendant "talked rationally." Witnesses may always be allowed to tes......
-
West Pratt Coal Co. v. Andrews
...Washington's Case, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Wright's Case, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Ellis' Case, 105 Ala. 72, 17 So. 119; Downey's Case, 115 Ala. 108, 22 So. 479. is evidence in the record which tends to show the plaintiff is permanently injured. In estimating the amount of damages to be gi......