State v. Burchfield
Decision Date | 19 June 1928 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 388 |
Parties | STATE v. BURCHFIELD. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.
Bart Burchfield was prosecuted for a violation of Gen.Acts 1927 p. 493. From a judgment declaring said act invalid, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Conforming to answer to certified question, 117 So. 483.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty Gen., and W.K. Brown and Smyer & Smyer, all of Birmingham for the State.
Goodwyn & Ross, of Bessemer, and C.C. & Morton Nesmith, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This prosecution was for an alleged violation of the Stock Law Act, approved August 30, 1927. General Acts 1927, p. 493.
The affidavit upon which the prosecution is based appears sufficient as to form and substance. Before entering upon the trial, the defendant below, appellee here, interposed demurrers to the complaint or affidavit. There were nineteen grounds of demurrer, all of which were of the same import and raised the question of the validity of the act, supra; the insistence being that said act is unconstitutional for the numerous reasons stated. The court below upheld the contention of defendant, sustained the demurrers to the affidavit and warrant, thereby holding said act was violative of several constitutional provisions. Judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the state took an appeal to this court under provisions of section 3239 of the Code 1923.
The constitutionality of the act in question being the only point of decision involved upon this appeal, this court, in pursuance to the statute, certified the question to the Supreme Court, who, in response to said certification by an opinion hereinafter set out, sustained said act and in effect held that no provision thereof is offensive to the organic law. That decision is conclusive of this appeal, and results in the reversal of the judgment entered in the court below. No further discussion by this court is necessary. The opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in this case is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frazier v. State
... ... Goldsby, Judge ... J. G ... Bennett, of Mobile, for appellant ... Charlie ... C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and W. M. Rayburn, Asst. Atty. Gen., ... for the State ... RICE, ... Affirmed ... on authority of State v. Burchfield, 218 Ala. 8, 117 ... So. 483; Id., 22 Ala. App. 502, 117 So. 485; Williams v ... State, 122 So ... ...