Threet v. State
Decision Date | 16 March 1943 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 248. |
Parties | THREET v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1943.
Jos A. Padway, of Washington D. C., and Merwin T. Koonce and A A. Williams, both of Florence, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and L. S. Moore, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
This is a companion case of Lash v. State, 14 So.2d 235, this day decided by this court. The controlling principles of the applicable law are identical in the two appeals.
Appellant's able counsel, in their reply briefs, succinctly point out the two propositions for decision, as follows: (Our interpolation.)
Upon consideration of the Lash case, supra, we entertained the view that there was probable merit in these two contentions, and hence, pursuant to legal mandate (Code 1940, Title 13, Sec. 87), the question of the validity, vel non, of said statute was certified, in the Lash case, to the Supreme Court for decision. 14 So.2d 229. See Lash, supra, for report of our certification and the reply opinion of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court resolved both issues against the appellant's contention. As to the first, in holding it unnecessary to specifically aver the proscribed acts to have been unlawfully done, it was observed by that court:
And as to the controlling-over-all-question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Thompson v. State
-
Holden v. State, 8 Div. 251.
...to the two controlling questions presented by the appeal, is in pari similibus with the cases of Lash v. State 14 So.2d 235, and Threet v. State, 16 So.2d 195, this decided by this court. In the said Lash and Threet cases, it was pointed out that an affirmance of the judgments of conviction......
-
Raley v. State
...to the two controlling questions presented by the appeal, is in pari similibus with the cases of Lash v. State, 14 So.2d 235 and Threet v. State, 16 So.2d 195, this decided by this court. In the said Lash and Threet cases, it was pointed out that an affirmance of the judgments of conviction......
- Threet v. State, 8 Div. 254.