Viberg v. State
| Citation | 35 So. 53,138 Ala. 100 |
| Parties | VIBERG v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1903 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.
George Viberg, alias Verberg, was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The indictment was in words and figures as follows: "The grand jury of said county charge, that before the finding of this indictment, George Viberg, alias Verberg, feloniously took and carried away five twenty dollar gold pieces of the gold coin of the United States of America, of the aggregate value of one hundred dollars, the personal property of Lawrence Thomas, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." To this indictment the defendant demurred upon the following grounds: "(1) Because said indictment fails to allege the name of the defendant under the second alias alleged in the indictment; (2) because said indictment fails to allege that the Christian name of defendant is unknown to the grand jury." On the trial of the case the state introduced as a witness one Lawrence Thomas, who testified that on October 8, 1902, he came to Montgomery with some cattle for sale; that about 9 o'clock in the morning he went to the Farley National Bank, and when he came out of the bank the defendant came up to him and asked him where he lived; that he told him he lived in Coosa county, whereupon defendant asked him if he had brought anything to town to sell; that upon witness telling him that he had sold some cattle, the defendant stated that he was interested in that business, and could introduce the witness to a party who was also interested, and that it would be to witness' interest to meet such party; that witness stated that he would go with him to see his friend if there was any money in it; the witness and defendant then walked eight or nine blocks; that, after they had gotten back of the Capitol defendant stated that his friend was in a buggy, and must have driven off, and upon his instructions he and the witness sat down to await his friend's return; that thereupon a negro came up, and, upon the defendant's asking him where he lived, he stated that he lived 27 miles in the country that defendant told the negro he wanted him to scatter some circulars for him, and he would give him a dollar for doing so; that the negro asked him to pay him fifty cents at that time, and defendant pulled a dollar out of his pocket, but the negro professed not to be able to change it, and defendant then asked the witness to change the dollar for him; that while witness was looking in his pocketbook to get the change he took out of it one hundred dollars in gold in five twenty dollar pieces; that the defendant asked the witness to allow him to hold it while he got the change, and witness handed the money to the defendant; that defendant then made a motion as if to hand the hundred dollars in gold to the negro; that the negro seemed to take it, and then defendant ran away in one direction and the negro ran in the opposite direction, and that witness ran after the negro, to whom he supposed the defendant had given the money. The witness further testified that the money did not belong to him, but belonged to his father, and was the proceeds of the sale of a load of cattle belonging to his father, which witness had brought to Montgomery to sell for his father. The defendant objected to the portion of the witness' testimony reciting the conversation had between him and the defendant from the time they met at the Farley National Bank to the time the money was taken, upon the ground that such evidence was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. The court overruled the objection, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. On the further examination of the witness he was asked when was the next time he saw the defendant. The defendant objected to this question upon the ground that it called for incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial evidence. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that the next time he saw him was under a circus tent that same day. The defendant moved to exclude this answer upon the same grounds of objections to the question, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion. The witness was then asked if the defendant was under arrest when he saw him in the circus tent. The defendant objected to this question upon the ground that it called for irrelevant and incompetent evidence, and tended to prejudice the defendant in the minds of the jury. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The witness answered that he was. The other facts pertaining to the rulings of the court upon the evidence are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of said charges as asked:
Terry Richards, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
In Haley v. State, 63 Ala. 89, it was held that the averment of the name of the defendant under an alias dictus was proper. In that case the Christian name of the defendant was averred under an alias, while in this case the surname of the defendant is so averred. If proper in the one, it is necessarily proper in the other. It was unnecessary to repeat the Christian name before the surname Verberg. To have done so would not have made the averment plainer. It would simply have been a mere repetition. The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled.
What was said between defendant and Thomas, from whom it is alleged the money was stolen, from the time of their meeting at the bank until they reached the place where the larceny was committed, being part of the transaction which culminated in the commission of the offense, was clearly admissible as part of the res gestæ. Churchwell v. State, 117 Ala 124, 23 So. 72.
The evidence in behalf of the state tended to prove that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vaughn v. State
... ... general commerce, and, as such agent, is a bailee of goods ... committed to it for transportation, and it is sufficient to ... lay the ownership of the goods in the corporation in an ... indictment for the larceny of such goods, or for like ... offenses. Viberg v. State, 138 Ala. 100, 35 So. 53, ... 100 Am.St.Rep. 22; Fowler v. State, 100 Ala. 96, 14 ... Moreover, the appellant's admission is not in conflict ... with matters of judicial knowledge. It is well settled that ... courts take judicial knowledge of all matters of common ... ...
-
The State v. Shelton
...the Ritter case was ruled applies just as strongly in the case at bar. The Ritter case was cited and quoted with approval in Viberg v. State, 138 Ala. 100, 100 Amer. St. That court held that it was proper to show the conviction to impeach a witness, although the judgment of conviction had b......
-
State v. Shelton
...Case was ruled applies just as strongly in the case at bar. The Ritter Case was cited and quoted with approval in Viberg v. State, 138 Ala. 100, 35 So. 53, 100 Am. St. Rep. 22. That court held that it was proper to show the conviction to impeach a witness, although the judgment of convictio......
-
Alabama Power Co. v. Thompson
... ... Alabama Power Company is a power corporation organized and ... existing under the laws of this state. As such corporation it ... has the right and power to acquire lands for public use in ... the conduct of its quasi public business. It may enter ... Corinth Bank & Trust Co. v. Lawler, 218 Ala. 83, 117 So ... 620; Collier v. Alexander, 142 Ala. 422, 38 So. 244; ... Viberg v. State, 138 Ala. 100, 35 So. 53, 100 ... Am.St.Rep. 22 ... But ... the rule of the cases just above cited is not controlling ... ...