Jinright v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation125 So. 606,220 Ala. 268
Docket Number4 Div. 451.
Decision Date05 December 1929

125 So. 606

220 Ala. 268


4 Div. 451.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 5, 1929

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Jim Jinright was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction being there reversed, the State applies for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment and conviction of said court in Jinright v. State, 125 So. 604. Writ granted, judgment of Court of Appeals vacated, and cause remanded.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and William P. Cobb, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. M. Loflin, Sol., of Enterprise, for the State.

J. C. Fleming, of Elba, opposed. [125 So. 607]


"To sell, offer for sale, keep or have in possession, barter, exchange or to give away, *** prohibited liquors, *** or to accept the delivery of, or to receive, have in possession, or possess in this state, any of said prohibited liquors and beverages as defined by the existing laws of the state of Alabama, in any quantity whatsoever," is a violation of the prohibition laws of this state. Code, § 4621. (Italics supplied.)

Each of the several offenses thus defined is punishable by fine, or by fine and imprisonment. Code, § 4622, as amended, Gen. Acts 1927, p. 714. "When offenses are of the same character, and subject to the same punishment, the defendant may be charged with the commission of either in the same count in the alternative." Code, § 4546.

In keeping with this statute of long standing, the lawmakers have incorporated in the Code a form of indictment to cover offenses under section 4621. This form, No. 101, reads:

"A B. did buy, sell or have in possession illegally, give barter, exchange, receive, deliver, carry, or ship prohibited liquors, contrary to law, against etc."

Code forms are declared by statute to be sufficient in all cases to which they are applicable. Code, § 4556. Notwithstanding this statute, the Court of Appeals takes the view that the form prescribed is fatally defective, when assailed by demurrer.

Following the former decision of that court in Griffin v. State, 22 Ala. App. 369, 115 So. 769, it is held the alternative averment that the accused "did buy prohibited liquors" charges no offense known to the law. On this premise the further holdings in the opinion under review are predicated.

Is the premise correct? "Buy" and "purchase" are convertible terms. This by common usage as well as dictionary definition. Webster's New International Dictionary, "Buy."

"To buy or purchase imports a sale. Delivery is an essential part of a sale of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Powell v. State, 8 Div. 322.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 24, 1932
    ...... for the first time question the sufficiency of the. indictment. It will be noted that the indictment pursues the. form prescribed in the Code (section 4556, form 88), and this. court has uniformly held that indictments following the Code. forms are sufficient. In the case of Jinright v. State, 220 Ala. 268, 125 So. 606, 607, this court was. again called upon to consider, and to pass upon the. sufficiency of an indictment prescribed by the Code, and it. was there said:. . . . "The. power of the Legislature to prescribe the form of. indictment is part of its ......
  • Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 12, 1955
    .......         Perhaps we should mention some of our code forms. There is no particular magic about one of these forms. The legislature merely prescribed a short, acceptable statement of pleading to be used in indictments for certain offenses. This court said in Jinright v. State, 220 Ala. 268, 125 So. 606, 607, . 'The power of the Legislature to prescribe the form of indictment is part of its general legislative power. Broadly speaking, it is curtailed only by constitutional limitations, such as the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of ......
  • Deloney v. State, 8 Div. 339.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 26, 1932
    ...... . . The. organization of the court as shown by the transcript was in. conformity to law and Supreme Court Rule 26 (Code 1923, vol. 4, p. 887). . . The. indictment is in Code form and is sufficient. Section 4556,. form 76, Code 1923; Jinright v. State, 220 Ala. 268,. 125 So. 606; Jones v. State, 136 Ala. 118, 123, 34. So. 236; Elam v. State, 25 Ala. 53; Boon v. State, 69 Ala. 226; Walker v. State, 150 Ala. 88, 43 So. 188; Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672;. Sanders v. State, 2 Ala. App. 13, 56 So. 69;. Sullivan v. State, 23 Ala. App. ......
  • Adkins v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 8, 1973
    ...v. State, 24 Ala. 672, 692; Schwartz v. State, 37 Ala. 460, 466; Doss v. State, ante, 220 Ala. p. 30, 123 So. 231.' Jinright v. State, 220 Ala. 268, 125 So. 606 (1929) It would appear then that all of the form indictments for selling prohibited liquors, sales by unregistered dealers, etc. w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT