Mays v. State
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Citation | 89 Ala. 37,8 So. 28 |
| Parties | MAYS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 30 May 1890 |
8 So. 28
89 Ala. 37
MAYS
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Alabama
May 30, 1890
Appeal from Colbert county court; JOHN A. STEELE, Judge.
The indictment in this case was found in the circuit court, and charged that the defendant, Jack Mays, "cultivated or occupied land under a common fence with Robert Wise, knowingly suffered hogs or cows or horses to go at large in such inclosure, or knowingly suffered said stock to go at large in said inclosure without a sufficient guard to prevent injury to crops." The case having been transferred to the county court for trial, the defendant there demurred to the indictment, because (1) it did not allege that there was at the time a growing crop on the land; and (2) because the offense was stated in the alternative, and one of the alternative charges was defective and insufficient. The court overruled the demurrer, and issue was joined on the plea of not guilty. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, Robert Wise testified on the part of the state that he and the defendant cultivated a crop on shares during the year 1888; that the defendant furnished the land, the mules, and the necessary feed for them, while he furnished the labor, and the crops were to be equally divided among them. The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that his contract for the cultivation of the land was made, not with said Wise, but with Judith Guinn, whose daughter said Wise afterwards married, and that he never made any contract with said Wise. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges: (1) "That if they believed from the evidence that the contract was made between the defendant and Judith Guinn, then they must find the defendant not guilty." (2) "That if they believed from the evidence that said Wise cultivated land belonging to the defendant, under a contract between them that defendant should furnish the land and the teams, that Wise should furnish the labor, and that the crops were to be equally divided between them, then they must find the defendant not guilty." The court refused each of these charges, and the defendant duly excepted. [8 So. 29]
Jackson & Sawtell and Kirk & Almon, for appellant.
W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
CLOPTON, J.
When an offense is created by a statute, which describes its constituents, an indictment conforming to the statutory description is sufficient; but pursuing the words of the statute will not suffice, unless every affirmative element of the offense is thereby distinctly and clearly averred. The general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Richardson
...any charge of larceny, [11 So. 729.] or of "stealing an ox." Horton v. State, 53 Ala. 488; Noble v. State, 59 Ala. 73; Mays v. State, 89 Ala. 37, 8 South. Rep. 28. Yet it may be that the charge of malicious prosecution could be based upon such a complaint, though it does not charge the offe......
-
Griffin v. State, 7 Div. 401
...4546, Code 1923. However, when so charged in the alternative, each alternative must state a complete offense under the law. May's Case, 89 Ala. 37, 8 So. 28; Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522. Count 4, in the indictment in this case, was defective, in that the first alternative averm......
-
Lipscomb v. State, 8 Div. 747.
...each alternative averment must state a complete offense under the law. Griffin v. State, 22 Ala.App. 369, 115 So. 769; Mays v. State, 89 Ala. 37, 8 So. 28; Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522.' It is our opinion that grounds 1, 2, and 5 are without merit. Ground 3 raises the point that......
-
Green v. State, 7 Div. 618.
...buy prohibited liquors, and an alternative averment in an indictment charging that defendant "did buy" was subject to demurrer. May's Case, 89 Ala. 37, 8 So. 28; Hornsby's Case, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522; Griffin's Case, 22 Ala. App. 369, 115 So. 769; Sharp's Case, 22 Ala. App. 562, 118 So. 23......