Edmondson v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1912 |
| Parties | EDMONDSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 11, 1912.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; M. Sollie, Judge.
Sam Edmondson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The indictment charges the defendant with selling spirituous vinous, or malt liquors without license, and contrary to law. The facts in reference to the indictment appear in the opinion of the court. Charge 1 is as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that Sowell Newsome swore willfully false in one particular in this case they should disregard the evidence of said witness entirely."
J. E Z. Riley and H. L. Martin, both of Ozark, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
1. The indictment in this case was sufficient. John Freeman v State, 59 So. 228.
2. We gather from this record that there were two indictments against this defendant, that both were similar in language and that the names of the same parties appeared upon the back of each indictment as witnesses for the state; in other words, that the two indictments were similar in all respects. We gather from the record, also, that one of the defendant's cases was set down for trial on one day and the other case for the next succeeding day. After the present case (the case set for the first day) had been called for trial, and the defendant had not only pleaded not guilty to the indictment, but the trial had been entered upon--in fact, while the witnesses were being examined--the defendant moved the court to require the solicitor to inform him as to what indictment he was being tried under. The court very properly refused to place any such requirement upon the solicitor. The defendant already had in his possession the information which he desired the court to require the solicitor to disclose. He had then pleaded not guilty to a particular indictment, and his trial was then being had under that indictment.
3. The effort of the defendant to show by evidence that he was tried for a sale of liquor for which he had not been indicted--if such a defense is available under an indictment for selling spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors without a license (see section 7353 of the Code)--was plainly abortive. There was abundant evidence tending to show that the defendant was indicted by the grand jury,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...must, etc., instead of the proper term the jury may disregard such testimony. Mills v. State, 1 Ala.App. 76, 55 So. 331; Edmundson v. State, 4 Ala.App. 196, 59 So. 229; Saulsberry v. State, 178 Ala. 16, 59 So. The refusal of charge 3 was without error, as expressly decided in Clifton v. Sta......
-
Harrison v. State
...and intentionally, sworn falsely as to any material fact in the case, they might disregard his entire testimony. Edmondson v. State, 4 Ala.App. 196, 59 So. 229; McClellan v. State, 117 Ala. 140, 23 So. Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 15, 50 So. 194; Seawright v. State, 160 Ala. 33, 49 So. 325. ......
-
McCandless v. Day
... ... 465, 140 Miss. 19; Swift & ... Company v. Soanes, 107 So. 881, 142 Miss. 660; ... Ascher and Baxter v. Moyse, 59 So. 229, 101 Miss ... 36; State v. Wyoming Mfg. Co., 103 So. 11, 138 Miss. 249 ... A board ... of trustees must act by a majority ... Ball v ... Jones, 102 ... ...