Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 01 June 1898
• Citation: Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 85, 23 So. 670 (Ala. 1898)
• Parties: WALKER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

23 So. 670

117 Ala. 85

WALKER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 1, 1898

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

Joe Walker was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Reversed.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the larceny of a hog. The bill of exceptions recites that, upon the cause being called for trial, "the state having announced ready for trial, the defendant stated that he was not ready as seven of his witnesses were absent. Thereupon the court asked when the witnesses were summoned. Being told by the clerk that they had been summoned several weeks prior, the court directed the defendant to inform him as to the materiality and importance of the testimony of the absent witnesses. Defendant thereupon asked not to be put upon a showing as to these absent witnesses, and requested the court to continue the case. The court refused to continue the case. The defendant then asked the court to set the case for another day of the term, and to give him attachments for the witnesses absent. The court replied that no day was open, and commanded the defendant to prepare a showing. In due time defendant submitted a showing as to two witnesses. The showing as to one was admitted. With respect to the showing for Rance Williams, the court stated that it was not at all probable that witness would admit the recent possession of the property, if it were stolen, and would not require the state to admit the showing; but said, further, that, if it developed that the read defense turned upon the identity of the hog, the showing would be permitted to go to the jury and required defendant to go to trial without respect to the showing." The trial was then proceeded with, and the state introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment, and that he did kill the hog belonging to Lettie Seawright. The evidence in behalf of the defendant tended to show that he purchased the hog which had been identified by the state's witnesses as the property of Lettie Seawright, from one Rance Williams, and that, after the killing and butchering of the hog, he had exposed it for sale near the place where Lettie Seawright lived. After the introduction of all other evidence in his behalf, the defendant asked permission of the court to introduce the showing as to what Rance Williams would testify to. This showing is copied in the opinion. The court refused to permit this showing to be introduced, and, as the bill of exceptions recites, assigned as the reason for said refusal that the defenses developed by the testimony for the defendant did not warrant it. To this ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted.

Joseph Calloway, for appellant.

Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COLEMAN J.

The defendant was convicted of the larceny of a hog. Before the trial was entered upon the defendant applied to the court for a continuance, which was refused, and after conviction moved the court for a new trial, which motion was overruled.

It is well settled that the statute, authorizing an exception to the action of the court overruling a motion for a new trial has no application to criminal cases. It is also settled that the...