Kemp v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1890 |
| Citation | 7 So. 413,89 Ala. 52 |
| Parties | KEMP v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Sumter county; S. H. SPROTT, Judge.
The defendant in this case was indicted for grand larceny in feloniously taking and carrying away a hog, the property of another. In the organization of the grand jury which found the indictment, it appeared to the court that the jury commissioners had not drawn grand and petit juries to serve at that term of the court; and thereupon the court ordered the sheriff to forthwith "summon eighteen persons qualified to serve as grand jurors for this term of the court." Upon such an order the sheriff summoned the number required, and the grand jury was then duly organized as required by law.
The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that the hogs of one White were near Beaver pond, near said White's house; that on the day the hogs were killed the said White was at the house of one Knox, when he heard two reports of a gun, and then heard a hog squeal; that he went in the direction of where the gun was fired with his dogs that on coming up to the place he heard some one running, but could not see him; that he found two of his hogs dead, and one of them had its throat cut; that defendant was seen that morning with a gun, and was at Beaver pond under the pretense of duck hunting; that he ran out of the swamp of Beaver pond that his hat was found somewhere near where the hogs were killed; that on the evening of the same day defendant told White that if he would wait until Monday morning, he would then put him on the track of who killed the hogs; and that defendant left the neighborhood, and was arrested in an adjoining county. The evidence in behalf of defendant tended to show that one Lee Jackson, who was with defendant the morning the hogs were killed, was the one who killed them that, when the gun was fired by Jackson, defendant ran, and dropped his hat, but was afraid to stop and pick it up; and that the reason he ran was that he was afraid some one would think he killed the hogs. On the cross-examination of one of the state's witnesses, defendant asked where Lee Jackson was. The state objected to this question, and the court sustained the objection; and defendant excepted. The witness was then asked whether said Lee Jackson did not, soon after the killing of the hogs, flee the county. But on objection by the state the court refused to allow this question, whereupon defendant excepted. The good character of defendant was proved.
At the close of the testimony, defendant asked the court to give the following charge: "If the jury believe the evidence they must find the defendant not guilty." The court refused to give this charge, and defendant excepted.
Altman & Patton, for appellant.
W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
By section 17 of an act "to more effectually secure competent and well-qualified jurors in the several counties of this state," (Acts 1886-87, pp. 151-158,) all laws then in force in relation to jurors, their drawing selecting, or qualification, not in conflict with the provisions of the act, are continued in full force and effect. The act contains no provision for the organization of juries in the event the officers charged with the duty of drawing and selection should fail to perform it, and hence no juries be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pope v. State
...... issued for Body was returned with the indorsement, "Not. found," 18 months after the date of the crime. This does. not show flight by Body; and, if it could be so interpreted,. even his flight is not a circumstance available to this. defendant. Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520; Kemp. v. State, 89 Ala. 52, 7 So. 413. . . We are. therefore fully satisfied that the attempted exculpation of. Body's mule, whether by legal or illegal evidence being. merely irrelevant, could not have influenced the verdict of. the jury unfavorably to the defendant, since they ......
-
Terry v. State
...... Ala.App. 122] interest, they are not competent evidence in. favor of a third party, being regarded by the law as to him. as mere hearsay. Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520;. Owensby v. State, 82 Ala. 63, 2 So. 764;. Goodlett v. State, 136 Ala. 43, 33 So. 892; Kemp. v. State, 89 Ala. 52, 7 So. 413; Whitaker v. State, 106 Ala. 30, 17 So. 456. The court consequently. committed no error in declining to let defendant prove that. one Holloway fled from the community immediately after the. crime here charged was committed. . . The. testimony ......
-
Milam v. State
...such as Thomas v. State, 16 Ala.App. 219, 77 So. 57; Id., 201 Ala. 697, 77 So. 1001. In Croom v. State, 71 Ala. 14, and Kemp v. State, 89 Ala. 52, 7 So. 413, no part of animal was taken away, and in Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 108, 22 So. 490, and Frazier v. State, 85 Ala. 17, 4 So. 691, 7 Am......
-
Evans v. State
...... a petit jury in a case such as we have before us. Section. 4316 of the Code, making provision for such a contingency,. was not repealed by said later jury law of 1886-87, and it. was competent for the court to direct a jury to be summoned. under the provisions of said section. Kemp v. State,. 89 Ala. 52, 7 So. 413. But, in requiring this to be done, the. court, to avoid an irregularity, should have directed the. sheriff to summon 30, and not 24 persons, as jurors for the. week, as directed by said section. Why 24 and not 30 were. ordered summoned, we have no information. ......