State v. Nix
| Decision Date | 10 February 1910 |
| Parties | STATE v. NIX. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; A. A. Evans, Judge.
Jim Nix was charged with enticing a servant. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The indictment was in the following language: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment that Jim Nix knowingly interfered with, hired engaged, enticed away, or induced Jack Massey, a laborer or servant, renter, or share cropper, who had stipulated or contracted in writing to serve one H. J. Turner, a given number of days, weeks, months, or for one year, before the expiration of the term stipulated or contracted for, said contract being in force and binding upon the parties thereto without the consent of the said H. J. Turner, to whom the service was due, given in writing, or in the presence of some reliable person, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The demurrer takes the points (1) that it charges no offense known to the law; (2) that the act and the section of the Code are unconstitutional and void, as in violation of section 1, art. 1, of the Constitution of the state of Alabama of 1901, and of the Constitution of the United States (fourteenth amendment). There are other grounds not necessary to be set out.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Peach & Thomas, for appellee.
This appeal is by the state of Alabama from a judgment based upon the adjudication of the constitutional invalidity of Code 1907, § 6850. As presently important, the statute reads: "Enticing Away Servants, Renters, or Laborers under Written Contract, etc.--Any person who knowingly interferes with, hires, employs, entices away, or induces to leave the service of another, or attempts to hire, employ, entice away, or induce to leave the service of another, any laborer or servant, renter, or share cropper, who has contracted in writing to serve such other person for any given time, not to exceed one year before the expiration of the time so contracted for. * * *"
The indictment pursues the form provided. Criminal Code 1907, p 669, form 55. Alternative averments in an indictment must each present an indictable offense; and if, in such an indictment, one or more of the alternatives expressed charge no offense, then the indictment is bad in toto. Horton v. State, 53 Ala. 493; Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boulden v. State
...would have been required had the charge been made separately in a separate count. Rogers v. State, 117 Ala. 192, 23 So. 82; State v. Nix, 165 Ala. 126, 51 So. 754, and cases cited; Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 176 So.2d 840. An indictment in the language of the first count was held good b......
-
State v. Hurdle
...70 Ill. 191, 22 Am. Rep. 71; State v. Aye, 63 S.C. 458, 41 S.E. 519; Tarpley v. State, 79 Ala. 271; Lee v. State, 75 Ala. 29; State v. Nix, 165 Ala. 126, 51 So. 754; State v. Harwood, 104 N.C. 724, 10 171; Kline v. Eubanks, 109 La. 241, 33 So. 211; Petty v. Leggett, 38 So. 549. There is a c......
-
Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. McLeod
...... injuries may be, like negligence, averred in very general. terms, without setting out the facts relied on to constitute. either (So. Ry. Co. v. Weatherlow, 153 Ala. 175, 44. So. 1019), yet, where a count, predicated on either,. undertakes to state the facts, it must state such facts as. are sufficient in law to show that the injury was wantonly or. intentionally and wrongfully inflicted (Va. Car. Chem. Co. v. Mayson, 7 Ala.App. 588, 62 So. 253). . . Here,. as will be observed from the quotation before made from the. count ......
-
Ingram v. State
...23 Ala.App. 162, 122 So. 309; Dix v. State, 8 Ala.App. 338, 62 So. 1007; Abercrombie v. State, 8 Ala.App. 326, 62 So. 966; State v. Nix, 165 Ala. 126, 51 So. 754; v. State, 140 Ala. 134, 137, 37 So. 225; Raisler v. State, 55 Ala. 64; Horton v. State, 53 Ala. 488; Noble v. State, 59 Ala. 73;......