Giles v. State
| Citation | 88 Ala. 230,7 So. 271 |
| Parties | GILES v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 29 January 1890 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Pike county; PARKS, Judge.
Indictment for failure to perform service for surety in a confessed judgment for fine and costs. The indictment in this case which was returned into the court on the 31st October, 1889 charged that the defendant, Frazier Giles, "having been convicted in the county court of Pike county on a charge of misdemeanor, and in consideration of M. D. Miers' having confessed judgment and being security for said fine and costs, entered into a contract in writing with said M. D Miers to perform service, (said contract approved in open court by the presiding judge,) and has abandoned said contract without just cause and excuse, and has failed or refused to perform said service, (said contract having been recorded in the probate office of Pike county within the time prescribed by law,) against the peace," etc. The defendant demurred to the indictment, but his demurrer was overruled; and he then pleaded guilty.
On the trial before the court, as the bill of exceptions shows, a jury not having been demanded, the prosecution offered in evidence the written contract referred to in the indictment which was dated September 27, 1888, and contained recitals and indorsement showing its due approval and registration and introduced said M. D. Miers as a witness, who testified, substantially, that on the day of the execution of said instrument, in Troy, Ala., the defendant refused to go and work with him, and has never been about him to perform said contract, up to the finding of the indictment in this case. The prosecution here closed, and the defendant then moved to dismiss the case, "on the ground that the prosecution was not commenced within twelve months after the commission of the offense." In opposition to this motion, the court allowed the prosecution, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to introduce in evidence a warrant for the defendant's arrest issued by the judge of the county court on the 25th October, 1888, charging him with a failure to perform service for said Miers under said written contract, and allowed the judge of said county court to testify that the warrant was issued on an affidavit which charged the offense in substantially the same words, and that he had not been able to find said affidavit after diligent search. The defendant objected and excepted to the admission of each part of this evidence. The warrant was offered and read in evidence; was indorsed, "Returned for an alias, February 16th, 1889;" and there was no proof that any other proceedings were ever had under it. The above being substantially all the evidence, the court found the defendant guilty, and imposed a sentence as prescribed by law; to which judgment and ruling the defendant duly excepted.
The act of February 25, 1889, establishing the criminal court of Pike county, and providing for appeals from that court to this, does not authorize us to review the conclusions of the judge of that court on the evidence adduced before him; jury being waived. Acts 1888-89, pp. 631-636; Wynn v. State, 87 Ala. 137, 6 South. Rep. 391.
If however, the facts put in evidence in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford v. State
... ... 836), ... conferring jurisdiction in such cases on the county court, ... authorizes us to review the conclusions of the judge of that ... court on the evidence adduced before him in the trial of a ... case without a jury. But, as was said in the case of Giles v ... State, 88 Ala. 230, 67 So. 271: "If, however, the facts ... put in evidence in a given case, or in respect to a ... particular matter, before the judge of that court, are free ... from conflict, and do not admit of adverse inferences or ... deductions, the action of the court in ... ...
-
Ryan v. City of Birmingham
... ... have been sold or otherwise disposed of in violation or ... evasion of law, and against the peace and dignity of the ... state of Alabama, in a certain house, room, or inclosure in ... the city of Birmingham, Alabama, to wit, at No. 118 North ... Twenty-Third street, and ... involved became a question of law arising from undisputed ... facts, and will be reviewed in this court. Giles v ... State, 88 Ala. 230, 7 So. 271; Bradford v ... State, 147 Ala. 118, 41 South 1024 ... The ... contention of the appellant is ... ...
- Boyd v. State
-
Jackson v. State
...between the two, which the statute contemplates shall exist to avoid the bar it creates. Martin v. State, 79 Ala. 267; Giles v. State, 88 Ala. 230, 7 So. 271. The warrant charged the offense of obtaining money false pretenses,-a fraud, it may be, bearing some resemblance to the fraud the st......