Troup v. State

• Decision Date: 22 April 1909
• Citation: 49 So. 332,160 Ala. 125
• Parties: TROUP v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

49 So. 332

160 Ala. 125

TROUP v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 22, 1909

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Madison County; Tancred Betts Judge.

Jack Troup, alias Ben Harris, was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The following charges were refused to the defendant: "(1) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that there is no evidence in this case that any witness who has testified is of good character. (2) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, before you can convict the defendant, that each one of you must believe from the evidence and beyond all reasonable doubt that defendant was the man who traded the mule in controversy to Mr. Preston, and, if either member of the jury have a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the man who traded the mule, then it is the duty of such juror to so find. (3) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you believe from the evidence that the defendant was in Morgan county, near Decatur, in the forenoon of April 27, 1908, then it is your duty to acquit him."

Wert &amp Lynn, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

SAYRE J.

Jack Troup, alias Ben Harris, was convicted of a felony in obtaining money and property by false pretenses. His effort at the trial was to show an alibi, and that another Ben Harris had been mistaken for him as the guilty agent in the commission of the offense. He adduced testimony tending to support his theory. There was testimony to the effect that the other Ben Harris had gray hair about his temples, while defendant had not. After a witness, Jim Maples, had been examined by the state, cross-examined by the defendant, and examined in rebuttal by the state, he was directed by the solicitor, we will presume, to stand aside. Thereupon defendant's counsel proposed to ask this witness "Did or not the man at your house on the night of April 27th have gray hair about his temples and ears?" The solicitor objected, and the court sustained the objection saying that the examination must proceed along orderly lines, and that the cross-examination had been minute and prolonged. Both direct and cross examination had touched upon the appearance of the defendant, but no question had been asked in regard to the peculiarity here referred to. The examination in rebuttal related to the witness' interest in the result of the trial or his bias in favor of the party injured--nothing more. The question called for an answer prima facie relevant and material. The ordinary rules of procedure, made to the end that the truth may be elicited by the expeditious as well as orderly examination of witnesses, require that parties must exhaust their cross-examination of a witness when entered into. Evidence is not to be drawn out piecemeal. But the rules relating to the order of the introduction of testimony are for the most part mere rules of practice, their enforcement or relaxation...