West v. State, 8 Div. 86.
Decision Date | 25 November 1941 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 86. |
Parties | WEST et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1941.
Appeal from Lawrence County Court; Chas. E. Bragg, Judge.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in West v State, 8 Div. 168, 6 So.2d 436.
Thos C. Pettus, of Moulton, for appellants.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and L. L. Mooneyham, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The three appellants were tried jointly upon an affidavit in words and figures as follows:
Warrants of arrest were duly issued against the three accused persons (appellants), made returnable to the County Court.
On the succeeding November 6, 1940, the case was called for trial, and before entering upon the trial the defendants in answer to said affidavit interposed demurrer thereto upon the following grounds:
Said demurrer was overruled, whereupon each of the defendants plead "not guilty."
Thereupon, the State introduced one Lonnie Spiller, who, after being first duly sworn, testified:
And on cross-examination of this witness he testified as follows:
There was some other testimony offered by the State, but the conviction of the defendants was rested upon the testimony above quoted.
At the conclusion of the State's case the defendants separately and severally moved the court to exclude the evidence and discharge the defendants. The motion was overruled and defendants duly and legally reserved an exception.
Each, of the three defendants, testified in their own behalf and denied in toto the testimony of State witness Spiller. Each of them denied being at the place as testified to by State witness Spiller. They all three testified they were not present at the time and had no deer, and further, all of them set up an alibi and insisted they were several miles away from the place and at the time testified to by said State witness. And some, if not all of the defendants, introduced other witnesses in support of their alibi.
The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. All three of the defendants were adjudged guilty as charged in the affidavit, and judgment of conviction was accordingly pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken.
No brief has been filed by the appellants, but it is the duty of this court to consider all questions apparent on the record, or reserved by bill of exceptions, and to render here such judgment as the law demands.
Motion for a new trial was duly made and called to the attention of the trial court, who after entering,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanders v. State
...of all reasonable rules and regulations of the State Department of Conservation having the force and effect of law. West v. State, 30 Ala.App. 318, 6 So.2d 434, certiorari denied, 242 Ala. 369, 6 So.2d 436; Williams v. Kelley, 289 Ala. 440, 268 So.2d In denying certiorari in West, supra, th......
-
Marcet v. Board of Plumbers Examination and Registration of Ala.
... ... BOARD OF PLUMBERS EXAMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF ALABAMA et al. 3 Div. 467.Supreme Court of AlabamaMarch 6, 1947 ... [249 ... Ala ... left to the State's police power. State ex rel ... Shirley v. Lutz, 226 Ala. 497(4), 147 ... Accountancy et al., 208 Ala. 185, 94 So. 94; West v ... State, 30 Ala.App. 318(6), 6 So.2d 434; Lovett v ... State, 30 ... ...
-
Clopton v. State
...Department of Conservation have the force and effect of law, and courts may take judicial knowledge of the same." West v. State, 30 Ala.App. 318, 321, 6 So.2d 434, 436 (1941), cert. denied, 242 Ala. 369, 370, 6 So.2d 436 (1942); accord, Robinson v. State, 43 Ala.App. 111, 112, 180 So.2d 282......
-
R.S.B. v. State
...State Department of Conservation have the force and effect of law, and courts may take judicial notice of the same." West v. State, 30 Ala.App. 318, 6 So.2d 434 (1941), cert. denied, 242 Ala. 369, 6 So.2d 436 (1942). See also Sanders v. State, 53 Ala.App. 534, 302 So.2d 117 The trial court ......