Hargrove v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1906
• Parties: HARGROVE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 972

147 Ala. 97

HARGROVE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; D. W. Speake, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Frank alias Buster Hargrove was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

M. K Clements, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The defendant was tried and convicted on an indictment charging him with the crime of burglary.

There are three questions presented for our consideration. The first is on the action of the trial court in overruling the motion of the defendant to exclude "all the evidence of the witness, Lee Davidson, in reference to alleged trailing of the defendant by the dogs." It was shown by this witness that he owned two bloodhounds, and "was in the business of running bloodhounds, and that the two dogs were trained to trail human beings. This witness further testified that one of the dogs had had four years' training, and that the other dog was two years old, "and had experience also," and that "these dogs had trailed 60 or 70 persons in the last four years." With this evidence as to the nature and training of the dogs, the testimony of this witness in reference to the trailing of the defendant by the dogs, was competent and admissible under the ruling in the case of Hodge v. State, 98 Ala. 10, 13 So. 385, 39 Am. St. Rep. 17. See, also, Little v. State (Ala.) 39 So. 674.

The second question is on the action of the court in overruling the defendant's motion "to exclude the evidence of the witness Labe Westmoreland in reference to the tracks." This witness testified "that he got a pair of shoes at the house of the defendant the night that the dogs went to the defendant's house, and after the defendant was arrested, and that some tracks that were found near Warten's store and near where the cash drawer was found, were the same length and width as the shoes found in the defendant's house." The witness further testified "that these shoes were put into the tracks found in the rear of Warten's lot, where the cash drawer was rifled, and they were the same length and width as these tracks." The defendant admitted, when being examined as a witness in his own behalf on the trial, that the shoes were his, and that he wore them on the day of the night of the burglary. The evidence as to the tracks was competent and relevant, and the court committed no error in overruling the ...