Hill v. State

• Decision Date: 19 May 1903
• Parties: HILL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 406

137 Ala. 66

HILL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 19, 1903

Appeal from Morgan County Court; Wm. E. Skeggs, Judge.

Henry Hill was convicted for living in a state of adultery or fornication with one Iuka Smith, and appeals. Reversed.

There was evidence introduced on the part of the state tending to show that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. Jim Thompson was a witness introduced for the state, and testified to having seen the defendant and Iuka Smith in bed together. He further testified that he was the son of Lena Hill, the wife of the defendant. On the cross-examination of this witness, and after he had testified that his mother left the defendant shortly after the time he stated he saw the defendant in bed with Iuka Smith, he was asked by defendant's counsel the following question: "Is it not a fact that, at about the time when you say you saw this woman out there, that your brother Morris Childers came down there and raised a row with Henry, and tried to kill him by shooting him with a gun?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Edmund Lampkin, a witness for the state, testified that, having heard that the wife of Henry Hill was sick, he went out to the place where she was staying one Sunday afternoon, and saw the defendant there, and also the woman Iuka Smith. Thereupon the state asked the witness Lampkin the following question: "Where has Iuka Smith been living since the time you saw them at the same place on this Sunday?" The defendant objected to this question upon the ground that it called for irrelevant and immaterial evidence, the court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that she had been living out at the same place, which was said to be owned by the defendant, ever since the time referred to. The defendant moved to exclude this answer, and duly excepted to the court overruling his motion. Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the witness was allowed to testify that he had seen the defendant and Iuka Smith pass his house several times since, going to the place said to belong to the defendant. Morris Childers, a witness for the state, testified that he was the son of Lena Hill, the wife of the defendant, and further testified to facts showing the defendant guilty as charged. On cross-examination of this witness, the defendant asked him the following question "On the day when you saw Henry Hill bring this woman Iuka Smith, out there, is it not a fact that on that day and at that time you came there for the purpose of raising a row with Henry, and didn't you try to shoot him with a gun?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The woman with whom the defendant is charged to have lived in a state of adultery or fornication was introduced in evidence and testified that her name was Iuka Tate, and not Iuka Smith, but upon further examination she testified that she had been sometimes called Iuka Smith. This witness testified that she lived on Charlie Hill's place; that Charlie Hill was the father of the defendant. Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the state was permitted to prove by said witness that the defendant sometimes sent groceries out to her, and sometimes brought groceries to her. Upon the cross-examination of this witness, the defendant sought to prove that she moved out to the place of Charlie Hill under a contract of hire with said Charlie Hill, who was an old man and a cripple, and that her duties were to look after things for him, and to take care of him. Upon objection on the part of the state, the court refused to permit the defendant to prove these facts by the witness, and to such ruling the defendant separately excepted.

Troup &amp Green, for appellant.

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

DOWDELL J.

The defendant was tried and convicted before the county court on an indictment for living together with one Iuka Smith in a state of adultery or fornication. The offense charged, as said in Bodiford v. State, 86 Ala. 68, 5 So. 559, 11 Am. St. Rep. 20, "is a crime of darkness and secrecy and hence always difficult of direct proof." The fact of illicit intercourse, like any other fact, may become a legitimate inference or conclusion to be drawn from...