Howell v. State, 6 Div. 778
| Decision Date | 17 December 1935 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 778 |
| Parties | HOWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.Q. Smith, Judge.
Dan Howell was convicted of robbery, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Albert Boutwell, of Birmingham, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case charged that the defendant feloniously took $1,511 of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which is to the grand jury otherwise unknown the personal property of C.H. Morrow, from his person and against his will by violence to his person, etc. The evidence tends to prove the crime charged as laid in the indictment but the evidence also discloses that the legal title to the money was in the Red Diamond Mine, the employer of Morrow, and that Morrow had possession of the money as the employee of the Red Diamond Mine, carrying it from the office in Birmingham to the mine at Leeds, Ala., for the purpose of paying the workers in the mine.
The point is made in brief that the title to the money is improperly laid in Morrow, and that there is a variance between the allegata et probata.
This position is untenable. Morrow was legally in possession of the money as bailee for his principal. The ownership of stolen property is properly laid in the party in possession, either as owner conditional, or bailee, or agent. Higdon v. State, 1 Ala.App. 174, 56 So. 13; Williams v. State, 5 Ala.App. 112, 59 So. 528.
It is also argued in brief that the description of the money in the indictment is not sufficient. This contention also is without merit. Where the number and denomination of pieces of money stolen are unknown to the grand jury, an allegation that they are unknown dispenses with further description in the indictment. Any fact which is unknown to the grand jury and which is not a material ingredient of the defense may be so charged in the indictment, and an indictment reading "The Grand Jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, the defendant feloniously took and carried away from the person, etc., $1511.00 of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown," is a sufficient description upon which to base a conviction. Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. 80, 22...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. State
...of stolen property is properly laid in the party in possession, either as owner conditional, or bailee, or agent. Howell v. State, 26 Ala.App. 612, 164 So. 764.' In Cobern v State, 273 Ala. 547, 142 So.2d 869, the Supreme Court 'Nor, on a charge of robbery, must the stolen property be in th......
-
Smiley v. State
...obtained in a robbery may be taken from the possession of an agent even though the ownership is in the agent's principal. Howell v. State, 26 Ala.App. 612, 164 So. 764; Riggens v. State, 44 Ala.App. 275, 207 So.2d State, 283 Ala. 694, 220 So.2d 882; Divine v. State, 279 Ala. 291, 184 So.2d ......
-
Raines v. State
...her to march to the prescription department. The robbers threatened to kill both of them if they failed to obey orders. Howell v. State, 26 Ala.App. 612, 164 So. 764. "On a charge of robbery it is not necessary that the stolen property be in the manucaption or on the person of the victim. I......
-
Green v. State, 1 Div. 75
...are unknown dispenses with further description in the indictment. Leonard v. State, 115 Ala. 80, 22 So. 564 (1897); Howell v. State, 26 Ala.App. 612, 164 So. 764 (1936); Jackson v. State, 18 Ala.App. 259, 89 So. 892 "When the charge is made, therefore, that the defendant stole 'sixty dollar......