Roberts v. State ex rel. Cooper, 1 Div. 402
Decision Date | 27 April 1950 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 402 |
Citation | 46 So.2d 5,253 Ala. 565 |
Parties | ROBERTS v. STATE ex rel. COOPER, Solicitor. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Chason & Stone, of Bay Minette, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from the interlocutory decretal order of the circuit court overruling the respondent's demurrer to the 'amended bill of complaint' filed by the State of Alabama on the relation of Kenneth Cooper, as Solicitor of the 28th Judicial Circuit of Alabama, against E. J. Roberts, alleged to be a resident of Baldwin County, under Chapter 46, Art. IV, Code of 1940, Title 14, embracing §§ 283 to 292, seeking to condemn fifty-three alleged gambling devices seized while in the possession of E. J. Roberts and alleged to be his property.
The amended bill alleges that 'on towit, August 7, 1949, Highway Patrol Capt. O. T. McDuff, Lt. Joe Smelley, Sgt. W. F. Dyer and Patrolman A. L. McGilberry, of the Alabama State Highway Patrol, acting under written authority from the Governor of the State of Alabama, as prescribed under the provisions of Section 71, Title 36, Code of Alabama, 1940, did find and seize in Baldwin County, Alabama, the gambling devices hereinafter described, and have reported such seizure and detention to your complainant.
'That said report of seizure and detention of said personal property shows that said Patrolmen have seized the following described gambling devices, towit: (a description of each of said devices such as 'one 5cents Mills Slot Machine, Ser. # 567070, manufactured by or for Bell-O-Matic Corp., of Chicago, Ill.') * * *
'Your complainant charges and avers that the above described machines are gambling devices within the meaning of Code of Alabama, 1940, Title 14, Section 283.'
By demurrer filed to the bill as amended the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the allegations of the bill on numerous grounds and his first contention is that the allegations of the bill do not show 'that the men named as seizing said property were members of the Highway Patrol at the time of such seizure and were acting as Peace Officers of the State.'
It is provided by statute, '* * * Members of the state highway patrol when so authorized in writing by the governor shall have the power of peace officers in this state and may exercise such powers anywhere within the state.' Code of 1940, Tit. 36, § 71, as amended, Cum.Sup. 1947, p. 93.
In Chapter 11, Title 55, Code of 1940, dealing with 'Peace and Law Enforcement Officers', Section 375 provides, inter alia:
The sheriff by Title 15, § 398, Code of 1940, is declared to be, 'the principal conservator of the peace in his county.' Title 14, Code of 1940, § 286 provides, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Mullis v. Mathews
...v. One 5 Cent 5th Inning Baseball Machine, 241 Ala. 455, 3 So.2d 27; Eastburn v. Holcombe, 243 Ala. 433, 10 So.2d 457; Roberts v. State, 253 Ala. 565, 46 So.2d 5; White v. State, 253 Ala. 645, 46 So.2d We would be blind to realities if we did not acknowledge the unsavory reputation, justifi......
-
Douglas v. State
...in writing by the governor shall have the power of peace officers in this state * * *.' Code 1940, T. 36, § 71. See Roberts v. State ex rel. Cooper, 253 Ala. 565, 46 So.2d 5.3 Photographs which Finley took show the car with Etowah County tags (31-27514).4 The learned trial judge correctly s......
-
Bell v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
...is only 'mere conclusions' or 'bald conclusions,' without supporting facts which are objectionable in pleading.' Roberts v. State ex rel. Cooper, 253 Ala. 565, 46 So.2d 5, 7; See also White v. State, 253 Ala. 645, 46 So.2d 413; Preston v. LaSalle Apartments, 241 Ala. 540, 3 So.2d 411; Poole......
-
White v. State, 6 Div. 23
...of the laws of the State of Alabama pertaining to gambling devices.' In the recent case of Roberts et al. v. State of Alabama ex rel. Cooper, Solicitor of Baldwin County, Ala.Sup., 1950, 46 So.2d 5, dealing with a question similar to the one at bar, it was stated: 'It is sometimes permissib......