Watt v. State

Decision Date01 December 1892
PartiesWATT v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Coosa county; JAMES R. DOWDELL, Judge.

Wheeler Watt was convicted of compounding a felony, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant in this case was indicted, tried, and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Wheeler Watt, then and there having knowledge of the commission of a felony, to wit, that Milton Cooper, alias Matt Cooper, was then and there guilty of grand larceny, the same being a felony under the laws of Alabama, did take or receive from the said Milton Cooper, alias Matt Cooper, one cow and yearling, and, to wit, five dollars in money, to compound or cancel said felony, or to abstain from any prosecution of said felony, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The defendant demurred to this indictment, and the court overruled his demurrer, and, upon judgment being rendered, the defendant now brings this appeal.

Felix L. Smith, for appellant.

Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON, J.

The indictment in this case was drawn in substantial and almost literal compliance with section 4006, [1] and with form 28,[2] p. 269, of the Code, and was not liable to the demurrer interposed, which was rightly overruled.

The Judgment is affirmed.

---------

Notes:

[1] This section provides that "any person who, having knowledge of the commission of a felony, takes, receives, or agrees to take or receive from another any money, property, or other thing of value to compound or conceal such felony, or to abstain from any prosecution therefor, must, on conviction, be fined not more than $1,000, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than 12 months. A prosecution and conviction may be had under this section, although the person guilty of the original offense has not been tried."

[2] This form of indictment for compounding a felony is substantially as follows: "A. B., knowing that one C. D. had been guilty of the commission of burglary, took or agreed to take from the said C. D. money or other property to compound or conceal such felony, or to abstain from any prosecution therefor."

---------

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 12 Mayo 1955
    ......State, 1882, 71 Ala. 344, attempted to charge an offense against person and property and the court correctly held that the ownership of the seed cotton which had been bought or the name of the vendor should have been alleged. .         The next case cited is Watt v. State, 97 Ala. 72, 11 So. 901. That case holds that the indictment, drawn in identical compliance with the statute, was not subject to demurrer. .         The charge in Miles v. State, 1891, 94 Ala. 106, 11 So. 403, was for defamation, which is an offense against a person. The court ......
  • Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 970
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 31 Agosto 1954
    ...was subject to demurrer for failure to set out the name of the person from whom the cotton was bought. In the case of Watt v. State, 97 Ala. 72, 11 So. 901, the court held that an indictment for offering a bribe to commit perjury, which failed to describe the court in which the legal procee......
  • Ex Parte Theisen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 2 Diciembre 1892
    ...... this allegation are as follows, viz.: That petitioner. obtained from the collector of revenue of said county a state. and county license as a liquor dealer for election precinct. No. 12 in said Escambia county for the year commencing. October 1, A. D. 1892, and ......
  • State v. Hodge
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 4 Diciembre 1906
    ..."The guilt of the party accused and the agreement not to prosecute are essential ingredients in the compounding of a felony." Watt v. State, 97 Ala. 72, 11 So. 901. In State v. Henning, 33 Ind. 189, an indictment compounding a crime was held bad, because it did not charge that the defendant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT