Gibson v. State
| Decision Date | 01 August 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 913 |
| Citation | 15 Ala.App. 12,72 So. 569 |
| Parties | GIBSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; J.J. Curtis, Judge.
E.M Gibson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Charge 3 is as follows:
The mere having of a liquor license in one's possession or custody where no liquors are found is not a prima facie case.
Peebles & Phillips, of Jasper, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The defendant was indicted by a grand jury of the circuit court of Walker county for a violation of the prohibition laws in that county, and was tried and found guilty. Three special pleas were filed by the defendant, to which demurrers were sustained. One of these special pleas alleged that before the beginning of this prosecution against him he was arrested on a charge for "the same offense" in Jefferson county, and that said case is still undisposed of and pending in the criminal court of Jefferson county. The second plea alleged that the defendant had been acquitted of "the same offense" in a mayor's court of Jefferson county, and the third plea set up that there was a case pending against the defendant for "the same offense" in the Birmingham court of common pleas. The demurrers interposed by the state to each of these pleas were properly sustained by the court. It is not a good plea in abatement to an indictment upon which a defendant is being tried that there is another charge pending against the defendant for the same offense. Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 25, 37, 22 So. 526. The charge in the indictment upon which the defendant was on trial charged a violation of law in Walker county; each of the three pleas in abatement set up a proceeding against the defendant for the commission of a similar offense in Jefferson county. A plea in abatement setting up a former acquittal or conviction should show positively the former case pleaded to be identically the same transaction as that with which the defendant is presently charged, and failing in this, is not sufficient, and is subject to demurrer on that ground. Stadt v. State, 69 So. 254; Huckabee v. State, 168 Ala. 27, 53 So 251. The pleas on their face showed that the transaction sought to be pleaded in abatement as a bar to the prosecution was a violation of the prohibition laws that took place in Jefferson county, while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holloway v. State
...transaction from the one upon which the instant indictment is predicated. Huckabee v. State, 168 Ala. 27, 53 So. 251; Gibson v. State, 15 Ala.App. 12, 72 So. 569. The rulings in respect to these pleas were free from The indictment was presented in open court on the 13th of March 1951. The w......
-
Williams v. State
... ... to quash was not error ... The ... pendency of an indictment is no bar to another prosecution ... for the same offense under a different indictment ... State ... v. Duplechair (La.), 125 So. 444; White v. State ... (Ala.), 51 So. 674; Gibson v. State (Ala.), 72 ... So. 569; Smith v. State (Fla.), 27 So. 868; ... Knight v. State (Fla.), 28 So. 759; Bell v. State ... (Ala.), 22 So. 526; 31 C. J., Indictment, sec. 73 ... Overruling ... the motion for continuance was not error ... On its ... very face, the ... ...
-
Holt v. State
...intent to sell contrary to law, only when the payment of such tax covers the period of time involved. Acts 1915, § 22 1/2, p. 25; Gibson v. State, 72 So. 569. The court erred in overruling the defendant's objection to this evidence. There was no positive evidence that the liquors discovered......
- Ogden v. State