Simpson v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McCLELLAN, J.
• Citation: Simpson v. State, 20 So. 572, 111 Ala. 6 (Ala. 1896)
• Decision Date: 18 June 1896
• Parties: SIMPSON v. STATE.

20 So. 572

111 Ala. 6

SIMPSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 18, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Dekalb county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

John Simpson was convicted of arson, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of arson in the third degree. The prosecution was commenced by an affidavit made before the judge of the county court of Dekalb county in which the defendant is charged "with willfully setting fire to or burning a barn of M. M. Beavers, in Dekalb county, Alabama." On the trial of the cause in the county court, the court allowed the solicitor to amend the affidavit by adding thereto the following: "Affiant further swears that in said county, within twelve months before making this affidavit, John Simpson willfully set fire to or burned the barn of James H. Collins, in which there was at the time no human being." Upon the cause being carried to the circuit court on appeal, the solicitor filed the following complaint: (1) "The state of Alabama, by its solicitor, complains of John Simpson, that within twelve months before the commencement of this prosecution he did willfully set fire to or burn a barn of M. M. Beavers, in which there was at the time no human being. (2) The state of Alabama, by its solicitor, complains of John Simpson, that within twelve months before the commencement of this prosecution he did willfully set fire to or burn a barn of James H. Collins, in which there was no human being." Upon the trial of the cause in the circuit court the defendant moved the court to strike the second count of the information from the file on the grounds (1) that it was variant from the cause as set forth in the original affidavit; and (2) because the second count is a departure from the cause as commerced originally in the county court. This motion was overruled. The defendant demurred to the information or complaint upon the same grounds. This demurrer was overruled. The defendant interposed a plea in abatement setting forth the facts as above stated, but upon motion of the state the plea in abatement was stricken from the file and to this ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted. The motion above referred to, and the demurrer and plea in abatement, and the rulings thereon, are shown only in the bill of exceptions. There was evidence introduced for the state tending to show that the defendant committed the offense of which he was charged, while the testimony of the defendant tended to show that he had no connection with the commission of said offense. Upon the examination of James H Collins as a witness, and after he had testified that he was in possession of the barn alleged to have been burned, as a tenant of M. M. Beavers, and after describing the kind of building the barn was, the solicitor for the state then asked the witness the following question: "What was in the barn when it was burned?" The defendant objected to this question because it was illegal, irrelevant, and incompetent. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. There was evidence introduced for the state tending to show that the defendant was tracked by bloodhounds, which had been put upon his track a short time after the building was burned. The owner of these dogs, which were known as "bloodhounds," testified that he had trained them to track human beings, and that they would not leave a track of a person, after they had once been put upon it, to follow another track. During the cross-examination of the witness he was asked the following question: "If he had not trained the bloodhounds at Collinsville, Ala., and if they were not close on to two years old, and if he did not know that they had recently been put on a human track, and had quit this track, and...