Wesson v. State
| Decision Date | 07 February 1896 |
| Citation | 19 So. 514,109 Ala. 61 |
| Parties | WESSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lauderdale county; Thomas R. Roulhoc Judge.
Wiley Wesson was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.
At the June term, 1893, of the district court of Lauderdale county an indictment was returned by the grand jury against the appellant, Wiley Wesson, as follows: "The grand jury charges that, before the finding of this indictment, Wiley Wesson sold, bartered, or exchanged spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, without a license, and contrary to law." This indictment was filed in open court on July 20, 1893. On the trial under this indictment, the defendant filed a plea of former conviction, in which he alleged that, on July 14 1893, the grand jury returned into the district court of Lauderdale county an indictment against the present defendant, which was identical with the present indictment and that, on the indictment returned into court on July 14 1893, the defendant was tried and convicted. The indictment and judgment of conviction were set out in the plea. The defendant then averred that he is the same person described in said indictment and judgment of conviction, "and that the offense charged and set forth in this indictment, under which he is now arraigned for trial, and which was returned into court by the grand jury on the 20th day of July, 1893, is identical with, and is the same offense charged and set forth in, the indictment set out hereinabove, and upon which judgment of conviction was pronounced upon defendant, and that the said indictments are in the same language and returned by the grand jury at the same term of the court." To this plea the state, by its solicitor, filed a replication, which averred To this replication the defendant demurred on the grounds (1) that the replication and pleadings show on their face that this defendant has heretofore been tried and convicted under an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...the rulings in question if errors were assigned upon them, but not otherwise. Alston v. State, 109 Ala. 51, 20 So. 81; Wesson v. State, 109 Ala. 61, 19 So. 514; v. State, 30 So. 432. The bill of exceptions contains the following remarkable statement: "The counsel for the defendant in their ......
-
Ellington v. State
...case there are no assignments of error; therefore the ruling will not be reviewed. Alston v. State, 109 Ala. 51, 20 So. 81; Wesson v. State, 109 Ala. 61, 19 So. 514. judgment is affirmed. ...
-
Smith v. State
...should have been given, it cannot be affirmed that the court was in error. Alston v. State, 109 Ala. 51, 54, 20 So. 81; Wesson v. State, 109 Ala. 61, 64, 19 So. 514. of them were clearly bad. Thus, charge 1 refers a question of law to the jury. Miller v. State, 107 Ala. 40, 19 So. 37. Charg......
-
Campbell v. State
... ... 105] ... appeared in a state of drunkenness or intoxication. The ... indictment follows the language of the form prescribed by the ... Code, and was not subject to the defendant's demurrer ... Murrell v. State, 44 Ala. 367; Holly v ... State, 54 Ala. 238; Wesson v. State, 109 Ala ... 61, 19 So. 514; Rodgers v. State, 26 Ala. 76; ... Elam v. State, 25 Ala. 53; 1 Mayfield's Dig. p ... 431, § 185 ... The ... court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the ... indictment. The judgment of the court below is affirmed ... ...