Ford v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1899 |
| Citation | 123 Ala. 81,26 So. 503 |
| Parties | FORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Pike county; E. B. Wilkerson, Judge.
Ben Ford was convicted of gaming, and appeals. Reversed.
The prosecution in this case was commenced by an affidavit made before the justice of the peace, which charged that "within twelve months before the making this affidavit Ben Ford, alias Ben Tiner, bet at a game played with cards or some device or substitute for cards, in a highway, or some other public place, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." To this affidavit the defendant demurred upon the ground that it charges an offense in the alternative, in charging that defendant "played with cards, or some device or substitute for cards." This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. One James Reeves, a deputy sheriff, testified that, while he was out looking for a person for whom he had a warrant, he came to where one Gus Copeland lived. His testimony, as set out in the bill of exceptions, was then as follows: "That he saw some negroes back of the house, and left said Parks and Tatum at the road, and slipped up to the corner of the house and watched them; that they were playing cards; that there were eight or ten in the crowd; that he walked up among them and arrested them; that the house was about ten or fifteen yards from the road; that the house set with the road, and that the parties playing cards were close to the house, on the back side from the road, opposite the corner of the back end of the house; that, when they came up to where said Gus Copeland resided, they came up in an opposite direction, to the back corner of the house where these parties were playing; that, where they were, they could not be seen from the road in that direction, but that they could be seen by persons from the road in the other direction." The evidence for the defendant tended to show that where he and his companions were, behind the house, they could not be seen from the road. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the hearing of all the evidence the court rendered a judgment of conviction.
D. A Baker, for appellant.
Charles G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The affidavit was not subject to the demurrer interposed to it. Code, § 4794; Cr. Code, form 24, p. 327.
Under the authority of Mills v. State, 20 Ala. 86, the place at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...that the players were seen and could be recognized, but could persons in the road see them playing cards? * * *.' See also Ford v. State, 123 Ala. 81, 26 So. 503. From the officer's own testimony that there was no visible evidence of any unlawful behavior of any person and that he did not g......
-
Gamble v. State
...sight and hearing from the road. State v. Moriarty, 74 Ind. 103; Carwile v. State, 35 Ala. 392; Henderson v. State, 59 Ala. 89; Ford v. State (Ala.) 26 So. 503. It is also that a road which, though not a regular public highway, is used and traveled, is a public place. Mills v. State, 20 Ala......
-
Lee v. State
...so declared by the court as matter of law. The circuit court did not err in giving the charge excepted to by the defendant. Ford v. State, 123 Ala. 81, 26 So. 503; Franklin v. State, 91 Ala. 23, 8 So. Henderson v. State, 59 Ala. 89. Affirmed. ...