Walker v. State

• Decision Date: 13 January 1910
• Citation: 165 Ala. 96,51 So. 357
• Parties: WALKER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

51 So. 357

165 Ala. 96

WALKER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pickens County; A. H. Alston, Judge.

Sam Walker was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license and of otherwise disposing of the same, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The plea is as follows: "Defendant says he has been in jeopardy for the offense of which he is now charged in this indictment, and that about September 11, 1908, before W. S Walker, a qualified justice of the peace in and for said state of Alabama and county of Pickens, and in said court defendant was in due form arraigned and pleaded to the said offense charged, which was in substance as follows: [Here follows the affidavit and warrant issued by W. S. Walker, a justice of the peace, charging the defendant with selling whisky without a license.] And that the defendant was thus put upon trial for such offense, and after he had pleaded to the same, and was thus put in jeopardy, that said justice of the peace then and there failed, declined, or refused to take jurisdiction of the said offense, as he had the legal right to do, and to acquit or convict this defendant, but, instead required defendant to give and enter into a bond for his appearance at the circuit court of said county to answer an indictment for the said offense as charged, to be preferred by the grand jury of said county, all of which the defendant is ready to verify." The demurrers raised the points decided.

Curry &amp Robison, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON J.

The act (Acts 1907 [Sp. Sess.] p. 190) did not increase the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. Its object is to dispense with indictments for the sale, barter, or exchange of liquor, and to dispense with jury trials, when not demanded under the provisions of same. It is true it requires that the prosecution must proceed upon the affidavit upon which the prosecution was originally begun; but that does not mean that the officer before whom the affidavit is made is given jurisdiction to finally dispose of the case, if he did not so have independent of the act. The word "magistrate" is used in the latter part of the act but he is merely given the right to examine witnesses, etc., and forward the testimony to the court which has jurisdiction to try the case, and it was not the legislative purpose to confer jurisdiction, not then existing, upon any...