Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 13 February 1894
• Citation: 100 Ala. 68,14 So. 875
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 875

100 Ala. 68

TAYLOR v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 13, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Sumter county; S. H. Sprott, Judge.

Matt Taylor was indicted, tried, and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charges that before the finding of this indictment Matt Taylor, whose Christian name is to the grand jury otherwise unknown, sold vinous or spirituous or malt liquors without a license and contrary to law. The grand jury of said county further charges that, before the finding of this indictment, Matt Taylor, whose Christian name is to the grand jury otherwise unknown, at another time sold vinous or spirituous liquor without a license and contrary to law, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." Affirmed.

On the trial of the case the defendant moved to quash the indictment on the following grounds: "That this defendant is indicted under the general revenue laws of the state for a violation of the revenue law thereof, and that said general law does not apply to nor obtain in Sumter county; that the last prohibition law passed for Sumter county (found in Acts 1890-91, p. 312) repealed all laws and parts of laws in conflict therewith, thereby repealing the general revenue law, so far as the same applies to Sumter county; that the special prohibition law of said county left the grand jury no discretion in finding true bills for violations of said law and especially set out the fact that the grand jury shall find indictments in all prima facie cases of violations of said special law, and the only law under which this defendant can be indicted for the offense with which he stands charged would be under the provisions of the special prohibition law of said county; wherefore he moves the honorable court to quash the said indictment." This motion to quash was overruled, and the defendant excepted. Thereupon the defendant demurred to the indictment on the following grounds: "(1) That the indictment alleges that the Christian name of the defendant is Matt Taylor, and at the same time alleges that his Christian name is to the grand jury otherwise unknown, thereby creating a variance. (2) That the allegations of the indictment as to the defendant's name are repugnant. (3) That the second count of the indictment is defective in that it is not definite, and does not allege at what specified time said act was committed, but simply says 'at another time.' (4) That the defendant is...