Lowe v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 1902 |
| Parties | LOWE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.
Will Lowe was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.
The indictment under which the appellant was tried was in words and figures as follows: Upon a demand, a severance was ordered, and the defendant Will Lowe, who is the appellant in this case was tried separately. The defendant demurred to the indictment upon the following grounds: This demurrer was overruled. On the trial of the case the state introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant, Will Lowe, and Tom Crittenden had feloniously taken and carried away 18 head of cattle; that 5 or 6 of said cattle belonged to J. H. Milligan, and 12 or 13 of them belonged to J. B. Milligan; and that the cattle were taken while out in a range owned by Milligan, a long distance from Montgomery, and were carried by the defendant and Crittenden with the assistance of others, to Montgomery, and there sold. Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the state was allowed to prove that, while the defendant and Crittenden were driving the 18 head of cattle taken from Milligan to Montgomery, they also took a bull belonging to one Reynolds, and drove it, with the other cattle, into Montgomery. There was evidence introduced for the defendant tending to prove an alibi. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charge, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the same as asked: "(1) If the jury believe all the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt, they must find the defendant not guilty." From the judgment of conviction the defendant appeals.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. State
...is charged. Parsons v. State, 251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209 (1948); Jackson v. State, 229 Ala. 48, 155 So. 581 (1934); Lowe v. State, 134 Ala. 154, 32 So. 273 (1901); Miller v. State, supra; Minnifield v. State, 397 So.2d 189 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 195 (Ala.1981); Thompson v.......
-
Jones v. State
...v. State, 152 Ala. 56, 44 So. 585; Knight v. State, 147 Ala. 104, 41 So. 911; Crittenden v. State, 134 Ala. 145, 32 So. 273; Lowe v. State, 134 Ala. 154, 32 So. 273; Gerrish State, supra; and Lyon v. State, supra. The designation of the party slain as "S. Rowan," instead of by his Christian......
-
Flournoy v. State, 8 Div. 606.
... ... offenses are of the same general nature and belong to the ... same family of crimes, and where the mode of trial and nature ... of punishment are the same, they may be joined in the same ... indictment in different counts. Sampson v. State, ... 107 Ala. 76, 18 So. 207; Lowe v. State, 134 Ala ... 154, 32 So. 273; Myrick v. State, 20 Ala.App. 18, ... 100 So. 455; Smith v. State, 22 Ala.App. 590, 118 ... So. 594; Asberry v. State, 24 Ala.App. 375, 135 So ... 605. While offenses of the category above mentioned may [34 ... Ala.App. 26] be joined in one count in the ... ...
-
Scott v. State
...is otherwise unknown. Such indictment is not subject to demurrer for misjoinder. Ex parte State, 197 Ala. 419, 73 So. 35; Lowe v. State, 134 Ala. 154, 32 So. 273; Wooster v. State, 55 Ala. The order setting day for trial and for the special venire was made on September 23d. The trial was se......