Kirk v. State

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
Citation14 Ala.App. 44,70 So. 990
Docket Number6 Div. 873
PartiesKIRK v. STATE.
Decision Date10 February 1916

70 So. 990

14 Ala.App. 44


6 Div. 873

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 10, 1916

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.

Wallace Kirk was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.


The court takes judicial notice that Robt. S. Snoddy is the judge of the city court of Jasper, a court created by the act of the Legislature approved March 29, 1911 (Local Acts 1911, p. 176), and as such he has the authority of a justice of the peace to issue warrants returnable into the law and equity court and courts of like jurisdiction; that said court is the only court styled "the city" court in Walker county (Grider v. Tally, 77 Ala. 422, 54 Am.Rep. 65; McCarver v. Herzberg, 120 Ala. 524, 25 So. 3; Cary v. State, 76 Ala. 78; Sandlin v. Anderson, Green & Co., 76 Ala. 403); and the fact that the officer administering the oath to the affidavit is styled "judge of the city court in and for said county" will be treated as a clerical misprision.

The complaint followed the language of the statute in charging the offense, and was sufficient to sustain a judgment. Spigener v. State, 11 Ala.App. 297, 66 So. 896; [70 So. 991.] Lee v. State, 10 Ala.App. 191, 64 So. 637; Ex parte Rodgers, 12 Ala.App. 223, 67 So. 710.

The complaint, besides charging the offense of selling prohibited liquors, charges, in different counts, and in the alternative in each of said counts, the offense of keeping prohibited liquors for sale. Under this complaint evidence of several different sales at different times was admissible as tending to show that such [14 Ala.App. 46] liquors were kept for sale in violation of the statute. Spigener v. State, 11 Ala.App. 297, 66 So. 896.

The question to the witness Clement King, as a predicate for impeaching him by showing previous declarations, "Did you tell Frank O'Neal in substance this, that you wanted him to swear against the defendant; that he had rolled you for your job?" did not fix the time and place of the conversation, and the objection thereto was properly sustained. Sexton v. State, 69 So. 341.

The testimony showing that prohibited liquors were found on the defendant's premises, the quantities found, defendant's declaration with reference to it, and testimony tending to show concealment in a way inconsistent with keeping for personal use was also properly admitted. Harwell v. State, 12 Ala.App. 265,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sparks v. State, 6 Div. 572
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 30, 1953
    ...Ala.App. 286, 102 So. 723; Valentine v. State, 19 Ala.App. 510, 98 So. 483; Nalls v. State, 19 Ala.App. 146, 95 So. 591; Kirk v. State, 14 Ala.App. 44, 70 So. 990; Humphries v. State, 2 Ala.App. 1, 56 So. In the early case of Lewis v. Post & Main, 1 Ala. 65, 73, this court said in part as f......
  • Howard v. State, 6 Div. 79
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • September 7, 1916
    ...The fourth count follows the language of section 12 of the Bonner Anti-Shipping Law, supra, and was likewise sufficient. Kirk v. State, 70 So. 990; authorities supra. It may be conceded that a passenger with [73 So. 560] bona fide transportation from one point in this state to a point in an......
  • Thornhill v. State, 6 Div. 60
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 1916
    ...The question first presented as to the sufficiency of the complaint in this case was disposed of adversely to appellant in Kirk v. State, 70 So. 990. Section 4 of the act entitled "An act to suppress gaming and gaming places" denounces as a felony the exhibition or exposure to view of cards......
  • Mitchell v. State, 6 Div. 82
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1916
    ...wholly unimportant, and the repetition of the county might [15 Ala.App. 111] properly be disregarded as surplusage. Kirk v. State, 70 So. 990; Cary v. State, 76 Ala. 78; Sandlin v. State, 76 Ala. 403; Coleman v. State, 63 Ala. 93; Whitney v. Jasper Land Co., 119 Ala. 497, 24 So. 259. The af......
  • 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