Grimes v. City of Florence

• Decision Date: 09 June 1914
• Docket Number: 223
• Parties: GRIMES v. CITY OF FLORENCE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

65 So. 846

10 Ala.App. 651

GRIMES v. CITY OF FLORENCE.

No. 223

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 9, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C.P. Almon, Judge.

John Grimes was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Florence, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph H. Nathan, of Sheffield, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER P.J.

In the argument of the counsel for the appellant (the defendant below), complaint is made only of the action of the trial court in sustaining the plaintiff's objection to the following question asked by the defendant's attorney on the cross-examination of one Freudenthal, the only witness who testified to a sale of prohibited liquor by the defendant:

"You bought the whisky for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not Mr. Grimes, the defendant, would sell you liquor, and for the purpose of reporting him to the authorities and having him arrested, did you not?"

Under rulings in this state which it is our duty to follow, it seems that the question, though asked on cross-examination was objectionable as calling for the uncommunicated purpose or intention of the witness. Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39, 26 So. 521; Carwile v. State, 148 Ala. 576 39 So. 220; Wheless v Rhodes, 70 Ala. 420; Burke v. State, 71 Ala. 377; Whizenant v. State, 71 Ala. 383; Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. 1, 16 So. 99; Alabama Fertilizer Co. v. Lee, 79 Ala. 497; Smith v. State, 145 Ala. 17, 40 So. 957; Wright v. State, 149 Ala. 28, 43 So. 575; Wray v. State, 2 Ala.App. 139, 57 So. 144; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Cleveland, 169 Ala. 131, 53 So. 80, Ann.Cas.1913B, 534. But, assuming that it was permissible, on the cross-examination of the witness, to interrogate him as to the motives or purposes by which he was actuated in the dealing with the defendant which he claimed to have had, yet it seems clear that the defendant could not have been prejudiced by the ruling complained of, as the witness had already, in response to questions asked on his cross-examination, made such admissions as to the capacity in which he was acting in participating in the transaction about which he had testified as to leave no room for a doubt that his purposes were such as were suggested in the question. In the part of his cross-examination which preceded the asking of that question the facts had been clearly brought out that at the time of the alleged sale testified to by the witness his business was that of a private detective, employed by a Nashville detective agency; that he was sent by his employer to Florence, and reported to the chief of police of that city; that he had been in Florence about two months or more before the day on which he...