Thomas v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTYSON, C.J.
Citation155 Ala. 125,46 So. 771
Decision Date14 May 1908

46 So. 771

155 Ala. 125


Supreme Court of Alabama

May 14, 1908

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; D. A. Greene, Judge.

George Louis Thomas was convicted of vagrancy, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The objection to testimony is sufficiently set out in the opinion. The facts tended to show that Thomas left his wife a few days before the birth of their child, without giving her any money or leaving any provisions in the house, and had never returned or in any way contributed to her support. The questions propounded to the wife, to which objections were sustained, were: "Did not your husband have credit at the grocery?" "Did you go to the grocer's and try to get provisions on your husband's credit?" "Could you not have gotten all the groceries you wanted, and had them charged to him, while he was away?" "Did you not visit Mrs. Jackson's house after your husband told you not to?" The bill of exceptions states that on the 23d day of November, 1907, judgment was rendered on said verdict, and on default of the payment of the fine the court sentenced defendant to 70 days' hard labor for the county, with an additional term for the costs. The defendant objected to said judgment, on the ground that same was excessive and not warranted by the testimony, and excepted to the court's pronouncing the same.

Black & Dinsmore, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.


This prosecution was commenced by affidavit, and was tried by the judge of the criminal court without a jury. Under the act establishing that court and those amendatory thereof, no provision is made for a special finding of facts by the judge, as is provided for in civil cases when tried by a circuit judge without a jury. Loc. Laws of Jefferson County, p. 599; section 3319, Civ. Code 1896. The overruling of defendant's demand for a special finding of facts was, therefore, correct. Furthermore, [46 So. 772.] the demand is not shown to have been in writing.

The wife of defendant was a competent witness for the prosecution. Gen. Acts 1903, p. 32; Wester v. State, 142 Ala. 56, 38 So. 1010.

The motion to exclude the entire statement of the wife, "that when defendant left he said he was going to Pensacola, Fla., on business, and would return in a few days, and that she did not know he was in town until she heard, about two weeks after he left her, that he was in a boarding house in town with another woman," was properly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Drake v. Rhodes
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 4, 1908 recorded in the probate office, together with the description of the lands as the same appears in the mortgage. Thus the mortgage under [46 So. 771.] which the sale was advertised is definitely described, and the notice itself furnishes the means of correcting the mistake made in transpo......
  • Ward v. Lane, 486
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • November 7, 1914
    ...injury if it appear that the party complaining had the benefit of all evidence that could have been thereby elicited. Thomas v. State, 155 Ala. 125, 46 So. 771; Pate v. State, 158 Ala. 1, 48 So. 388. The above rule may, at times, place the complaining party to some disadvantage, especially ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT