Ladd v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1891
• Citation: 9 So. 401,92 Ala. 58
• Parties: LADD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

9 So. 401

92 Ala. 58

LADD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 16, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.

The appellant, Vincent D. Ladd, in this case was indicted, tried and convicted for carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The testimony for the state tended to show that, upon the defendant meeting the two Smith boys and one Johnson in a lane,-one of the Smith boys driving a steer,-he stopped them and asked where they were taking the steer; that one of the Smiths had a gun; that the defendant, in getting out of his buggy, had in his hand a pistol, and demanded of one of the Smiths the gun; that upon being given the gun he put the pistol in his pocket, where it could not be seen, and unbreached the gun, and took the cartridges therefrom. The concealment of the pistol, by putting it in his pocket constituted the evidence against the defendant. Defendant's evidence was in direct conflict with this and tended to show that he held the pistol in his hand while he was unloading the gun, and all the rest of the time while he was talking to the said Smiths and Johnson; that he carried the pistol under a sheep-skin-rug in the bottom of the buggy. Upon the examination of one Brown, who was a witness for the defendant, and who was with him in his buggy when he met said Smiths, he was asked by the solicitor: "Where did the defendant carry his pistol as he came up from South Pittsburg?" The defendant generally objected to this question, but assigned no specified grounds of objection, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his objection. Witness answered that he did not know where the pistol was carried. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the following written charges, and duly excepted to the court's refusal to give each charge as asked: "(1) If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant carried the pistol in his buggy, and not concealed about his person, they should acquit the defendant. (2) If the jury have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant carried the pistol in his buggy, or as to whether he carried it concealed about his person, the defendant is entitled to said doubt, and the jury should acquit the defendant."

R. W. Clopton, for appellant.

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

WALKER J.

1. By an order made during the term at which the judgment was rendered, the court fixed the time in which the bill of exceptions should be signed after the adjournment. The judge in vacation allowed several additional extensions of the time so fixed. Each allowance of further time was made before the expiration of the time fixed by the next preceding order, so that there was no lapse or period during which the bill of exceptions could not have been signed under an existing order, and it was signed within the time last allowed by the judge. The authority of the judge in this regard was not exhausted by one extension of the time fixed during the term. Prior to the passage of the statute now regulating the subject, bills of exceptions were required to be signed during the term at which the trial or proceeding was had, or by written consent of the parties or their counsel filed in the cause, at any time before the next succeeding term of such court, and not afterwards. Code 1886, § 2761, and rule 30. p. 810. The present statute provides that in no case shall the time allowed by the order made during the term, or by the judge in vacation, exceed six months. Acts 1886, p. 126; Code 1886, note to section 2762. The legislature recognized the fact that it is often impracticable to prepare a bill of the exceptions during the term of the court at which they were reserved, and the purpose of the statute was to relieve parties, in this particular, of any dependence upon their adversaries. The court, or the...