Mead v. State, 6 Div. 979

• Decision Date: 10 January 1950
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 979
• Citation: 43 So.2d 839,35 Ala.App. 70
• Parties: MEAD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

Page 839

43 So.2d 839

35 Ala.App. 70

MEAD v.STATE.

6 Div. 979.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 10, 1950.

John R. Robinson, of Gadsden, for appellant.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. T. Hardin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

The indictment charges that 'before the finding of this indictment Billie Mead, whose name is otherwise unknown to the grand jury than as stated, with intent to injure or defraud, did alter, forge, or counterfeit a certain check which was in substance as follows:

'Blountsville, Alabama, 11/27/48.

'The Bank of Blountsville pay to the Order of

'Chamblee & Ratliff $30.00 Thirty Dollars.

'W. B. Mead

'Contrary to law and against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.'

CARR, Judge.

Billie Mead was indicted for forgery in the second degree.His conviction followed as charged.

The indictment is in substantially the code form.Title 15, Sec. 259,Code 1940.The demurrers thereto were overruled without error.Overby v. State, 24 Ala.App. 254, 133 So. 915;Benson v. State, 124 Ala. 92, 27 So. 1;Davis v. State, 165 Ala. 93, 51 So. 239;McDaniel v. State, 20 Ala.App. 407, 102 So. 788;Jennings v. State, 17 Ala.App. 640, 88 So. 187.

In his motion for a new trialthe appellant contends that one of the jurors selected to try his case had a conversation with the county solicitor.

The affidavits in support of this insistence fall far short of establishing any impropriety on the part of the assistant prosecutor.Neither is it shown that the appellant was in any manner injured in his rights by the incident.

The brief conversation occurred just after the jury had been selected and before the juror in question had taken his seat in the box.Appellant's affidavits simply state that there was a conversation without attempting to set out the contents thereof.The counter affidavits make proof that the interview related to a business matter which was entirely disassociated from appellant's case.It was very brief and all that was said was in the presence and hearing of the court and opposing counsel.The record does not disclose that there were any questions raised at the time by appellant's attorney.

In passing on the motion the trial judge stated that the conversation took place in the presence of the court.His position in ruling on the motion was at a decided advantage and his judgment should not be disturbed.Mullins v. State, 24 Ala.App. 78, 130 So. 527.

The appeal is here on the record proper without a transcription...