Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 19 May 1904
• Citation: 140 Ala. 146,37 So. 157
• Parties: SMITH ET AL. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

37 So. 157

140 Ala. 146

SMITH ET AL. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 19, 1904

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.

Henry Smith and others were convicted of burglary, and appeal. Affirmed.

The appellants in this case were tried and convicted for burglary, and sentenced to the penitentiary for four years. The indictment under which they were tried charged that Henry Smith and Will Smith, "with intent to steal, broke into and entered the office of F. E. Meyer, a building in which goods, merchandise, or harness--things of value--were kept for use, sale, or deposit, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." On the trial of the case F. E Meyer was introduced as witness for the state, and testified that he was engaged in the business of running a coal and wood yard in the city of Montgomery; that in said woodyard he owned a building which was used as an office in connection with said business, and which was also used to deposit harness and tools for safe-keeping. It was further shown that said office was a permanent structure, having been upon the premises for many years, and having been used by said Meyer for several years in the manner and for the purposes above stated. The witness Meyer further testified to the fact of said building being broken into, and a parlor rifle stolen therefrom. There was other evidence introduced on the part of the state tending to show that the defendants were guilty as charged. The defendants requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked "(1) The court charges the jury that, if they believe the evidence in this case, they must find the defendants not guilty. (2) The indictment in this case charges that the defendants, with intent to steal, broke into and entered the office of F. E. Meyer, a building in which goods merchandise, or harness--things of value--were kept for use sale, or deposit; and the court charges the jury that, before they can convict the defendants, they must believe from the evidence that said office of F. E. Meyer was especially constructed and made to keep such goods, merchandise, or harness. (3) The court charges the jury that, before they can convict the defendants, they must believe from the evidence in the case that the building alleged in the indictment to have been burglarized must have been specially...