Lodge v. State

• Decision Date: 15 June 1899
• Citation: 122 Ala. 97,26 So. 210
• Parties: LODGE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

26 So. 210

122 Ala. 97

LODGE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 15, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Cherokee county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

George W. Lodge was convicted of carrying concealed weapons, and he appeals. Reversed.

Daniel & Brindley, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DOWDELL J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The prosecution began upon a warrant issued upon the affidavit of one Otto Gordon. Otto Gordon, who was the principal witness for the state upon the trial of the defendant, was a boy 14 years of age, and the son of Mr. and Mrs. A. Gordon. The defendant sought to prove by this witness, on cross-examination, ill will and a state of bad feeling on the part of both M. Gordon and Mrs. A Gordon towards the defendant. This testimony was objected to by the state on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial, and the objection was sustained. The defendant also sought to prove by this witness, as tending to show ill will on the part of M. Gordon, the father, towards the defendant, the fact of a prosecution then pending against the defendant, commenced on affidavit of M. Gordon, charging him with adultery with one Belle Turner, which evidence was objected to by the state, and the objection was sustained by the court.

That it is competent to show the state of feeling of a witness when called to testify cannot be doubted, the purpose being to give the jury all of the facts necessary to a full and fair consideration of his evidence, and to enable them to determine the degree of credit to be accorded the same. It was decided in Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144, 14 So 409, that it was competent for the defendant in a prosecution to show that the employer of a witness testifying in behalf of the state against the defendant was taking interest in the trial of the case, the court using in that case the following language: "In weighing testimony, the jury ought to be in possession of all facts calculated to exert any influence upon the witness. It cannot be said, as a conclusion of law that an employé testifying in a matter in which he knows his employer is interested personally or pecuniarily is or is not wholly unbiased. It is proper for the jury to know the character of the interest of the employer, how it is to be affected, and in what way it is manifested. An employer may act from a sense of public duty,...