Traylor v. State
| Decision Date | 01 February 1894 |
| Citation | 100 Ala. 142,14 So. 634 |
| Parties | TRAYLOR ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Pike county; William H. Parks, Judge.
Jere Traylor and Coleman Dangerfield were convicted of vagrancy and appeal. Affirmed.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendants were convicted of vagrancy. The court overruled a demurrer to the complaint, and also overruled the motion of the defendants to exclude certain testimony. These are the two questions presented by the record for our consideration.
That portion of section 4047 of the Code under which the defendants were prosecuted reads as follows: "Any person, who, having no visible means of support, or being dependent on his labor, lives without employment, or habitually neglects his employment *** must on conviction for the first offense be fined," etc. The complaint follows the statute, charging that affiant "has probable cause for believing, and does believe, that, within twelve months before making this affidavit in said county, Jere Traylor, having no visible means of support, or being dependent on his labor, lives without employment, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama," etc. The demurrer is "that said warrant fails to allege substantially, that the defendants were able-bodied, or physically able to follow some employment for support." The facts stated as ground for demurrer might constitute a defense to the prosecution, but, certainly, it is not necessary to aver these in the complaint. The general rule is that when a statute creates an offense, prescribing its constituents, it is sufficient, in an indictment, to pursue the language of the statute. Grattan v. State, 71 Ala. 344; Danner v. State, 54 Ala. 127; and many others cited in note to section 4370 of the Code. The complaint conforms to this rule, and the facts averred in the demurrer are merely such as might be offered in defense. We think the principle declared in Boulo's Case, 49 Ala. 22, not in conformity with the general rule; and its adoption would lead to the proposition that it is necessary to aver, affirmatively, not only the commission of the offense, but that the person charged was capable of committing the offense.
The state introduced testimony that defendants said they were fortune tellers, and some witnesses testified that defendants told their fortunes, but made no charges for telling fortunes. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorenson v. United States
... ... Thereupon the court sentenced this defendant on the first ... count to imprisonment in the Iowa State Penitentiary, at Ft ... Madison, for a period of four years; and on the second, for ... the larceny, the sentence was imprisonment for a period of ... ...
-
Lacy v. State
...v. State, 111 Ala. 22, 20 So. 634; Wall v. State, 2 Ala.App. 157, 56 So. 57; Gleason v. State, 6 Ala.App. 49, 60 So. 518; Traylor v. State, 100 Ala. 142, 14 So. 634; Jordan v. State, 5 Ala.App. 229, 59 So. Brannon v. State, 67 So. 1007; Bush v. State, 67 So. 847. There is no vitiating uncer......
-
St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Sutton
... ... and may, if apparent upon the record, be taken by the ... appellate court, as the judgment of the court in such state ... of the case, if one were rendered, would be a nullity ... Karthaus v. N. C. & St. L. Ry., supra; London v. Cox, L ... R. 2 H. L. 239; ... McCalman's Case, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; ... Billingsley's Case, 96 Ala. 126, 11 So. 409; ... Traylor's Case, 100 Ala. 142, 14 So. 634; Ellis' ... Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75, 17 So. 119; Evans' Case, 109 Ala ... 11, 21, 19 So. 535; Payne v. Long, 121 ... ...
-
Haney v. State
...the answer. An objection after the question has been answered comes too late. Dupree v. State, 148 Ala. 620, 42 So. 1004; Traylor v. State, 100 Ala. 142, 14 So. 634; Powell v. State, 5 Ala. App. 75, 59 So. Witness for the state Jesse Windsor testified that Bill Haney was walking out of Houg......