Kreutner v. State, 3 Div. 369

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSAYRE, J.
Citation202 Ala. 287,80 So. 125
Docket Number3 Div. 369
Decision Date29 June 1918

80 So. 125

202 Ala. 287


3 Div. 369

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 29, 1918

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1918

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Henry Kreutner was convicted of crime, and, the conviction being affirmed by the Court of Appeals, defendant brings certiorari. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and cause remanded.

See, also, 80 So. 127.

McClellan, Gardner, and Thomas, JJ., dissenting.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W.W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


The act "to regulate and prescribe the method of securing jury trials in civil causes at law and in misdemeanors, and to prescribe how such causes shall be tried without the intervention of a jury and reviewed" (Acts 1915, p. 939), was one of a number of acts passed at the same session of the Legislature through which ran a general purpose to provide a remedy for a situation described by the judiciary recess committee in part as follows:

"Our procedure is almost as varied as the number of courts and burdened by many technicalities which hamper rather than promote justice." House Journal, vol. 1, p 1571

Section 1 of the act provided:

"That in all civil causes at law in the circuit court the issue and question of fact shall be tried by the judge of the court without the intervention of a jury unless a jury trial be demanded," etc

Section 2 of the act provided:

"That in all misdemeanor causes in the circuit court, the issue and question of fact shall be tried by the judge of the court without the intervention of a jury except in causes where a trial by jury is demanded," etc.

True, that about eight months previously, within five days of the beginning of its session, while there were in various parts of the state inferior courts, each with its own peculiar jurisdiction and procedure, and before the reform of our judicial system had gathered headway, the same Legislature had done its part in the passage of the act approved January 23d, 1915 (Acts, p. 8 et seq.), commonly known as the act for the enforcement of the prohibition laws of the state, section 32 of which provided that--

"If the prosecution is begun in a court in which jury trials are provided for, the defendant may at the time he gives bond or within five days thereafter file in the cause a demand for trial by jury, or if he does not give bond, he may within five days after his arrest file in the court a demand for a jury trial, in which event such jury trial shall be allowed."

There is also the rule of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Spooney v. State, 4 Div. 358
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 26, 1928
    ...... of murder, is implied from the intentional and unlawful. taking of human life. 1 East, 295; 3 Green Ev. § 123; Whart. Homicide, § 226; 1 Archbold Cr.Pl. & Pr. (Pomeroy's Ed.). 678. Whenever ......
  • Touart v. American Cyanamid Co., 1 Div. 316.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 8, 1948
    ...of the Court in construing statutes. We cite a few of these cases: State v. Praetorians, 226 Ala. 259, 146 So. 411; Kruetner v. State, 202 Ala. 287, 80 So. 125; Tucker v. McLendon, 210 Ala. 562, 98 So. 797; Birmingham Paper Co. v. Curry, 238 Ala. 138, 190 So. 86; Street v. Cloe, 207 Ala. 63......
  • Davis v. County of Pierce
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • December 29, 1922
    ...187. "It is a ruling of statutory interpretation that a general act is not to be construed as repealing a particular one." Kreutner v. State (Ala.) 80 So. 125; Koehn Public Serv. Commission, 176 N.Y.S. 147; Vertress v. State Bd. (Tenn.) 214 S.W. 737; People v. Chicago, etc. R. Co. (Ill.) 12......
  • Holmes v. State, 7 Div. 491.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1941
    ...statutory prescription is exclusive and also comprehends misdemeanor prosecutions for violation of the prohibition law. Kreutner v. State, 202 Ala. 287, 80 So. 125. If the cause is sounded within thirty days after the defendant has been arrested, or taken into custody after the finding of t......
  • 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