May v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1897 |
| Parties | MAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pike county; W. L. Parks, Special Judge.
William May was convicted under an indictment charging that he, with the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding Mary E Motes, who had a lawful and valid claim thereto under a written instrument, lien, etc., did sell or remove personal property consisting of a mule. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
P. A Motes, the husband of Mary E. Motes, testified that, in the year 1894, the defendant, through him, as the agent of his wife, executed to Mary E. Motes a mortgage upon a certain mule, together with other property, to secure a certain indebtedness named in the mortgage, and that in the month of March, 1895, the defendant traded said mule off. The state offered this mortgage, executed by the defendant to Mary E Motes, in evidence. It was executed on January 29, 1894, and the law day of the mortgage was October 1, 1894. The defendant objected to the introduction of this mortgage in evidence, upon the ground that evidence that he sold or removed the property, to which property the party claiming to have been defrauded had a legal title, is not admissible, the law day of the mortgage having passed, and vesting an absolute title in the mortgagee. The mortgagee, as a witness testified that she did not consent for the defendant to trade the mule off; that she did have a conversation with him about the time the mule was traded, but it was two or three days after the trade was made; and that her recollection was that she told the defendant that all she wanted was her money when it fell due. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf testified that, after the execution of the mortgage, he traded the mule conveyed therein for a horse, with the permission and consent of Mary E. Motes, the mortgagee, and after the trade was made, her husband took the horse, which was traded for the mule, and sold it at the foreclosure sale of the mortgage. The court, in its general charge to the jury, instructed them, among other things, as follows: "If you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, within three years before the finding of the indictment in this case, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud M. E. Motes, traded off or sold the mule described in the indictment, and that he had given said M. E. Motes a mortgage thereon, which had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. State
...is a fact which the jury could infer from the above evidence. Foster v. State, 88 Ala. 182, 7 So. 185 (1890). Also see May v. State, 115 Ala. 14, 22 So. 611 (1897); Kent v. State, 34 Ala.App. 443, 41 So.2d 194 (1949); Courtney v. State, 10 Ala.App. 141, 65 So. 433 "(S)elling or removing pro......
-
Stevenson v. State
...of this court and the Supreme Court it appears that the ruling was without error. Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 21 So. 214; May v. State, 115 Ala. 14, 22 So. 611; Rogers v. State, 166 Ala. 10, 52 So. 33; Wise State, 11 Ala.App. 72, 66 So. 128; 4 Mich.Ala.Dig. p. 113, sec. 176. The motion t......
-
Bentley v. State, 4 Div. 240
...a valid claim or lien, with knowledge of its existence, raises a presumption of an intent to defraud the holder of the lien. May v. State, 115 Ala. 14, 22 So. 611. But there is no evidence here tending to show a removal of the furniture by this defendant. The mere fact that she went with he......
- Kent v. State