Minto v. State
Decision Date | 03 June 1913 |
Citation | 8 Ala.App. 306,62 So. 376 |
Parties | MINTO v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 19, 1913.
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; Gaston Gunter, Judge.
Mike Minto was convicted of keeping a gaming table, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Hill Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In the course of the examination of the first witness introduced by the prosecution in reference to the place which was sought to be proved to have been the scene of the commission by the defendant of the offense charged, the following question was asked: "How did you get in; how was the entrance there; how many doors you went through before you get into the place; was there a gambling table there?" This was not a single question, but several questions asked together. The defendant objected to the inquiry as a whole. Part of it called for a statement of the witness descriptive of the place inquired about. This part of the inquiry certainly was not subject to objection. This being true, the objection going to the several questions as one whole was properly overruled. Theodore Land Co. v Lyon, 41 So. 682; [1] Southern Ry. Co. v. Hardin, 1 Ala.App. 277, 55 So. 270.
As the charge against the defendant could be sustained by proving first that a table was kept or exhibited for gaming at a certain place and then that the defendant was interested or concerned as its keeper or exhibitor, it was permissible to admit evidence having a tendency to prove that the place in question was one arranged for gambling and resorted to for that purpose; such evidence being subject to exclusion unless subsequently other evidence was adduced connecting the defendant with the commission of the offense.
In connection with the statement previously made by the witness Parker as to the frequency of his visits to the place mentioned by him and as to gaming which was in progress there at such times, it was permissible to prove by this witness that when he went there, before he was let in, some one looked at him through a peephole in a door in the stairway leading to the room in question. The fact so deposed to was corroborative of the other evidence tending to prove that the place was kept and maintained for gambling purposes, and the court was not in error in overruling the objection to the question by which it was brought out. There was no lack of the requisite evidence to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense charged.
After the witness Brinsfield had without objection testified to the circumstance of two policemen's coming to the place above referred to on an occasion when several men were there but not engaged in gaming, the defendant objected to a question which elicited from the witness the statement that "some one in there said the police were coming." The fact of the visit of the policemen on that occasion being in evidence without objection, we cannot conceive how the defendant could have been prejudiced by the witness' being permitted to add the statement to the effect that some one there made the remark that the police were coming. We are satisfied that no injury resulted to the defendant from the ruling the sole result of which was to let in testimony as to the making of such a remark on such an occasion. It follows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jarrell v. State
...were interposed and overruled by the court the witnesses replied in a manner that was not prejudicial to the defendant. Minto v. State, 8 Ala.App. 306, 62 So. 376; Murray v. State, 17 Ala.App. 253, 84 So. 393; Supreme Court Rule We come now to consider the written instructions which were re......
-
Jarrell v. State
... ... Garrett v. State, supra; Stallings v. State, supra ... It is there ... disclosed that on the comparatively few occasions when ... objections were interposed and overruled by the court the ... witnesses replied in a manner that was not prejudicial to the ... defendant. Minto v. State, 8 Ala.App. 306, 62 So ... 376; Murray v. State, 17 Ala.App. 253, 84 So. 393; ... Supreme Court Rule 45 ... We come now to ... consider the written instructions which were refused to the ... appellant ... We have hereinabove ... illustrated the ... ...
-
Tennessee Valley Sand & Gravel Co. v. Pilling
...appellee's witnesses. The witness finally answered, 'I would not say.' This reply was in no manner harmful to the objector. Minto v. State, 8 Ala.App. 306, 62 So. 376; Murray v. State, 17 Ala.App. 253, 84 So. Assignments Nos. 6 and 7 A witness for the appellant was 'How did the deposits of ......
-
Ex parte Gunter
...69 So. 442 193 Ala. 486Ex parte GUNTER. STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GUNTER, Judge. No. 156Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 13, 1915 ... Rehearing ... Denied June 30, 1915 ... city court of Montgomery, commanding him to pronounce ... sentence according to law upon Minto and Adams who had been ... duly convicted in the trial court. The cases against Minto ... and Adams were identical in every respect, and a history ... ...