Lett v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 1900 |
| Parties | LETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Conecuh county; John R. Tyson, Judge.
Abb Lett appeals from a conviction. Affirmed.
The indictment under which the appellant in this case was tried and convicted contained two counts. The first count charged the larceny of a buggy harness of the value of $10, the personal property of Henry Savage. The second count charged the larceny of a buggy harness of the value of $10, the personal property of Luman Savage. On the trial of the case the state introduced evidence tending to show the guilt of the defendant, and the defendant's evidence tended to show that he had purchased the harness alleged to have been stolen from one John Howard. Luman Savage, a witness for the state, testified that the defendant had worked for him as porter at his store, and was familiar with the place where his harness and that of his son, Henry Savage, was kept; than ten days or two weeks after the harness was taken the defendant drove by his store one evening after dark; that he (the witness) halted the defendant, and walked out, and discovered the harness which had been stolen on the defendant's horse. The witness Luman Savage testified that upon the discovery of the harness on the defendant's horse the defendant said "he had forgotten the name of the man he had gotten the harness from, and could not remember it right at that time, and soon after he told him that he had bought the harness from John Howard." The solicitor then asked the witness the following question "Who did he tell you, in the first conversation you had with him, that he got the harness from?" The witness answered "that it has been so long *** I cannot tell the name of the man he gave me in the first conversation, but it was different from the man he told me in the second conversation that he got the harness from." The defendant moved to exclude this answer of the witness from the jury on the grounds: First, that it was not responsive to the question; and, second, that it was the expression of an opinion or conclusion on the part of the witness. The court overruled this motion, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. George Etheridge, who was the sheriff of Conecuh county, was introduced as a witness, and testified on his direct examination that he had a subp na for John Howard as a witness for the state; that he tried to find John Howard to serve said subp na, but had failed to find him. On cross-examination this witness testified that he had tried to find John Howard about two years before the pending trial and made inquiry for him in the town of Evergreen, but did not hunt for said Howard anywhere else than in Evergreen, and would not know him if he would see him; that he could not say that John Howard was not in Conecuh county at that time. One Arthur Sampey was then called as a witness, and testified that about two months before the time of his testifying he was in Pensacola, Fla., and saw John Howard there. One C. S Rabb was then called as a witness for the state, and on direct examination testified that he did not know where John Howard lived, only by what said Howard told him something over two years ago, "which was at the time of the preliminary trial of this defendant on this charge." The solicitor then asked the witness Rabb, "Where did John Howard tell you that his home was?" The defendant objected to this question on the ground that it called for illegal and irrelevant evidence, and that Howard's statements two years ago as to where he lived were not competent evidence against the defendant on the pending trial. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that Howard told him a little over two years before that his home was in Pensacola Fla. Upon this witness further testifying that he was present at the preliminary trial of the defendant before the justice of the peace in which the defendant was charged with stealing the harness in this case, before the indictment was found, he was asked if he heard John Howard testify on the trial of that case before the justice of the peace. The defendant objected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State
...had not been subp naed, and his evidence given on the preliminary trial of this defendant, with others, was properly admitted. Lett's Case, 124 Ala. 64, 27 So. 256, and there cited; Wilson's Case, 140 Ala. 43, 37 So. 93; Jacobi's Case, 133 Ala. 1, 32 So. 158. The motion made by the defendan......
-
Hines v. Miniard
...second trial was seen at his residence there, and the sheriff with process could not find him, in the county, was sufficient. Lett v. State, 124 Ala. 64, 27 So. 256. In v. State, 125 Ala. 52, 27 So. 844, two predicates were sought to be laid: Absent witness Forsythe, a soldier, whose perman......
-
McCoy v. State, 5 Div. 53.
... ... well settled in this state. Lowe v. State, 86 Ala ... 52, 5 So. 435; Thompson v. State, 106 Ala. 74, 17 ... So. 512; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 68, 18 So. 240; ... Mitchell v. State, 114 Ala. 1, 22 So. 71; Burton ... v. State, 115 Ala. 1, 22 So. 585; Lett v ... State, 124 Ala. 64, 27 So. 256; Percy v. State, ... 125 Ala. 52, 27 So. 844. But, testimony of this character ... being admitted from necessity and by way of exception to the ... general rule of the law, the party offering it assumes the ... burden of showing to the court that he has ... ...
-
Downey v. Johnson
... ... resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff ... With ... some additions which we will later observe, we state the ... tendencies of the evidence from appellant's able brief: ... "The ... testimony offered before the jury by the plaintiff was to ... Hines, Director Gen., v. Miniard, ... 208 Ala. 176, 94 So. 302, and authorities therein cited; ... Morris v. State, 146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274; Lett ... v. State, 124 Ala. 64, 27 So. 256; Wilson v ... State, 140 Ala. 43, 37 So. 93 ... It is ... next urged that the trial court should ... ...