Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 04 February 1897
• Citation: Williams v. State, 113 Ala. 58, 21 So. 463 (Ala. 1897)
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

21 So. 463

113 Ala. 58

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 4, 1897

Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.

Henry Williams, convicted of crime, appeals. Reversed.

On the 5th day of September, 1896, Carrie Thomas made affidavit before W. A. Yeatman, a justice of the peace, that she was a single woman, residing in Calhoun county, Ala., and pregnant with a bastard child, and that Henry Williams was the father of the child; and on the same day said justice of the peace issued a warrant for the arrest of Henry Williams for the offense of bastardy, "by pregnating Carrie Thomas." Henry Williams was arrested on the 7th day of September 1896, and had his trial before said justice of the peace on the 16th day of September, 1896, and was on that day held in a $300 bond for his appearance at the next term of the city court of Anniston, and from term to term thereof, until discharged by law, to answer a criminal prosecution for the offense of bastardy, by pregnating Carrie Thomas. At the November term of the city court of Anniston, the defendant moved the court to quash the bond in this case, that defendant was required by the justice of the peace, one W. A Yeatman, to enter into for his appearance in this court to answer "a criminal prosecution for the offense of bastardy, by pregnating Carrie Thomas"; and movant further moves that this case be dismissed out of this court and that he be discharged from further attendance thereon or appearance therein. For the grounds of said motion, movant avers: (1) That said W. A. Yeatman, justice of the peace, had no legal authority to require movant to enter into said bond for his appearance in this court to answer the charge, and that he exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so. (2) That this court has no jurisdiction to try this case, for that neither said bond nor any of the papers or proceedings in said cause shows that the alleged offense occurred within the jurisdiction of this court, or that she is pregnant with or has been delivered of a bastard child, within the jurisdiction of this court. (3) There is no criminal prosecution for the offense of bastardy, by pregnating Carrie Thomas, pending in this court, nor was there any such prosecution pending before or tried by said justice before he required movant to enter into said bonds. (4) The statute under which said justice acted, and under which he required movant to enter into said bond, is in derogation of the common law, and explicitly required said justice, if there was probable cause to bind defendant at all, that he should be bound in a bond, conditioned to appear at the next term of the circuit court of Calhoun county. (5) There is no statute or law conferring upon this court jurisdiction to try bastardy cases, and this court has no jurisdiction of this case. (6) This court has not acquired jurisdiction of the parties. The court overruled this motion, and the defendant duly excepted. On November 27, 1896, the state of Alabama filed a complaint in this cause, in which it charges that defendant is the real father of the child with which Carrie Thomas, a single woman, is pregnant, as alleged in the affidavit and complaint made before W. A. Yeatman, justice of the peace, on the 5th day of September, 1896. The defendant demurred to this complaint, on the ground that it fails to show that the city court had jurisdiction of the case. The court overruled this demurrer, and the defendant duly excepted. The prosecutrix testified to facts showing that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged. The state offered in evidence a letter which was written by the defendant to the prosecutrix, tending to show an affection and intimacy between the defendant and the prosecutrix. The handwriting in this letter was proven to be that of the defendant, and the defendant himself admitted having written the letter. On the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, for the purpose of laying a predicate to contradict and impeach her testimony, the defendant asked her, in separate questions, if she had not been criminally intimate with several named men other than the defendant, giving the time and places. To each of these questions she answered in the negative. Upon the introduction as witnesses of these several parties inquired about in the questions asked the prosecutrix, the defendant, after fixing the time and place asked them if they had not been criminally intimate with the prosecutrix. The state objected to each of these questions the court sustained the objections; and the defendant separately excepted to each of these rulings. Subsequently the witnesses were allowed to testify that they had been criminally intimate with the prosecutrix.

The court, at the request of the defendant, gave to the jury the following written charge: "The burden of proving that defendant is the father of the child with which Carrie Thomas is pregnant is upon the state; and, if the evidence that has been adduced before the jury leaves the minds of the jury in a state of doubt and uncertainty as...