Frazier v. State, 106
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | WALKER, P.J. |
| Citation | 66 So. 879,11 Ala.App. 285 |
| Parties | FRAZIER v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 106 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1914 |
66 So. 879
11 Ala.App. 285
FRAZIER
v.
STATE.
No. 106
Court of Appeals of Alabama
June 30, 1914
Appeal from Sumter County Court; P.B. Jarman, Judge.
Jim Frazier was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Dismissed.
Thomas F. Seale, of Livingston, for appellant.
[11 Ala.App. 286] R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
WALKER, P.J.
If the prosecution for a violation of the state's prohibitive liquor laws is begun before a court or judge as to which or whom no provision is made for a jury trial, the court or judge, if it or he has jurisdiction to try the case and find the party charged guilty or not guilty, shall proceed with the trial, and, if the party charged is convicted, he may appeal to the circuit court or other court of record of like jurisdiction in the county, having jurisdiction in cases of appeal from the county court or from a judgment of a justice of the peace, in such form and in such manner and subject to such restrictions as govern appeals under the Code of Alabama from such justices of the peace or county court, and the party may demand and be entitled to a jury trial in such higher court. Acts of Alabama, Special Session 1909, pp. 63, 92,§ 32. The county court of Sumter is a court having jurisdiction to try such cases as the one at bar and to find the party charged guilty or not guilty, and as to which no provision is made for a jury trial. Acts of Ala. 1898-99, p. 376; Witt v. State, 130 Ala. 129, 30 So. 473. As to prosecutions for violations of liquor laws, the provisions as to the disposition and appeal of cases in which a jury trial is demanded, which are made in the local act creating that court, must be regarded as superseded by the above referred to inconsistent provisions of a general statute, which (see section 38, p. [11 Ala.App. 287] 96, Laws 1909, Sp.Sess.) repealed "all laws and parts of laws, general, local and special, in conflict with the provisions of this act." Wilson v. State, 10 Ala.App. 156, 64 So. 509; Moss v. State, 3 Ala.App. 189, 58 So. 62. The Legislature has the right to require a [66 So. 880.] trial of the charge in the court in which the prosecution is instituted, in which a jury trial is not provided for, and to allow a trial by jury only on appeal to another court; and this is what has been done as to the class of cases to which the instant one belongs. Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 So. 213,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kreutner v. State, 3 Div. 307
...6 Ala.App. 31, 60 So. 549; Fletcher v. State, 11 Ala.App. 180, 65 So. 683; s.c., 188 Ala. 1, 66 So. 148; Frazier v. State, 11 Ala.App. 286, 66 So. 879; Brown v. State, 75 So. 174; s.c. reviewed by Supreme Court, 76 So. 995; Baader v. State (Sup.) 77 So. 370. All of these decisions except th......
-
Coleman v. State, 6 Div. 596
...merely an informal memorandum, evidently copied into the minutes of the court from the bench notes of the trial judge," id. at 426-27, 66 So. at 879). "A judgment should be complete and certain in itself, and must appear to be the act--the adjudication--of the court, and not a memorandum or......
-
Edwards v. Davenport, 639
...Ala.App. 426] from; five days being the limit, as fixed by the statute, for the prosecution of appeals from justice courts. Code, § 4713. [66 So. 879.] The appeal bond, as will be observed from reading the quotation from it as hereinbefore set out, expressly stated that the appeal was from ......
-
Daley v. State, 8 Div. 491
...213, Ann.Cas.1912C, 1093; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89, 31 Am.Rep. 34; Ireland v. State, 11 Ala.App. 155, 65 So. 443; Frazier v. State, 11 Ala.App. 285, 66 So. 879. There was evidence before the court authorizing the conclusion announced in the judgment of guilt, and a new trial was proper......