Finnem v. State
Citation | 115 Ala. 106,22 So. 593 |
Parties | FINNEM v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 28 June 1897 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Bibb county court; N.H. Thompson, Judge.
Peter Finnem was convicted of engaging in fighting cocks in a public place, and appeals. Affirmed.
The testimony for the state was that within 12 months before the finding of the indictment, in Bibb county, near the town of Blocton, in an old field about one-fourth or one-half mile from the public road, the defendant, with others, was engaged in cockfighting; that there were present between 75 and 100 people, witnessing the cockfighting; that it was not necessary that people should have an invitation to be present, but any one who wished to could be present, and there were people there from all over the county; that the defendant fought several cocks during the day. The defendant offered no evidence. The court, at the request of the solicitor, gave to the jury the following written charges "If the jury believe the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt, they must find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment." The defendant duly excepted to the giving of this charge, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the following written charges requested by him:
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the evidence, there can be no doubt that the place where the defendant fought cocks was a public place. Campbell v State, 17 Ala. 369; Henderson v. State, 59 Ala 89; Windham v. State, 26 Ala. 69; Coleman v State, 20 Ala. 51. The evidence being without conflict as to the character of the place, and also as to the commission by the defendant of the act denounced by the statute at that place, and as to time and venue, the court properly gave the affirmative charge for the state as requested by the solicitor. The charges requested by the defendant proceeded on the idea that the evidence did not show a public place, and were therefore well refused. But, aside from this consideration, it cannot be said, as matter of law, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Chicago v. Terminiello
...meeting was a public one. All of them, in one form or another, involve the question as to what is a public place, such as Finnem v. State, 115 Ala. 106, 22 So. 593, or what is public property, or the construction of the word ‘public’, such as State ex rel. Maher v. Baker, 88 Ohio St. 165, 1......
-
Gamble v. State
...384; Nickols v. State, 111 Ala. 58, 20 So. 564. It has been held that an assemblage may make a place temporarily public (Finnem v. State, 115 Ala. 106, 22 So. 593); but it has also been held that the assemblage of a persons at a place not open to the public will not so operate (Taylor v. St......
-
Gamble v. State
...Nickols v. State, 111 Ala. 58, 20 South. 564. It has been held that an assemblage may make a place temporarily public (Finnem v. State, 115 Ala. 106, 22 South. 593); but it has also been held that the assemblage of a few persons at a place not open to the public will not so operate (Taylor ......
-
Kinney v. Koopman
...... magazine of explosives to be used for blasting within the. city limits of Jersey City. A statute of the state had. declared the keeping of explosives within the limits of a. city in larger quantities than a specified amount to be a. misdemeanor. In ......