Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 06 April 1893
• Citation: 98 Ala. 22,12 So. 808
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

12 So. 808

98 Ala. 22

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 6, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Wilcox county; John Moore, Judge.

Turner Williams was indicted for forgery and uttering a forged paper, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant in this case was tried and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment Turner Williams, with the intent to injure or defraud, did falsely make or forge an instrument in writing, in words and figures substantially as follows:

"'Mr C. brint

let wash horn

have two dollars

in trade

an oblige

W t L Au 27 1892'

-"The said Turner Williams meaning and intending to express in and by said instrument that W. T. Lyles had written an order dated August 27, 1892, to Mr. C. Bryant, to let Wash Holmes have two dollars in trade; or the said Turner Williams, with the intent to injure or defraud, uttered and published as true said above-described written instrument, the said instrument having been falsely made or forged, and the said Turner Williams interpreting and understanding said instrument to be an order from W. T. Lyles to Mr. C. Bryant to let Wash Holmes have two dollars in trade, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." Defendant's demurrer to this indictment was overruled. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court, at the request of the defendant, gave the following charge to the jury: "If there is a probability of the defendant's innocence, then the jury should acquit the defendant." After having read this charge to the jury, the court ex mero motu instructed the jury as follows: "Probability is the state of being probable; and 'probable' has been defined to be, 'more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to belief, but leaves some room for doubt." The defendant duly excepted to this charge given by the court of its own motion.

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

HEAD J.

The minute entry recites that the defendant demurred to the indictment on the grounds set forth in the demurrer, which the court overruled. There is no demurrer in the record, and we have no brief pointing out the supposed defects. We are unable to see any defect or insufficiency in the indictment. Rembert v. State, 53 Ala. 467; Horton v. State Id. 488; Hobbs v. State, 75 Ala. 1; Johnson v. State, 35 Ala. 370; Code 1886, § 4385. It follows...