Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 09 January 1890
• Citation: 7 So. 101,88 Ala. 80
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

7 So. 101

88 Ala. 80

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 9, 1890

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON, Judge.

Prosecution for petit larceny. The defendant in this case was arrested under a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, "on a charge of petit larceny alleged to have been committed by him in said county, on or about the 12th day of June, 1889, on the premises of J. W. James, said charge being preferred by said James." The affidavit on which said warrant was issued was made before the justice by said James, and stated that "in said county, on or about the 12th of June 1889, one Henry Williams did steal from his premises one plow-stock, sweep, single-tree, and set of gearing, against the peace," etc. On the trial before the justice of the peace, the defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to hard labor for the county for six months, from which judgment he took an appeal to the city court. In that court the solicitor filed a statement or complaint in the name of the state charging the defendant with the larceny of the articles named, alleging that they were the personal property of J. W James, and of the aggregate value of five dollars. To this complaint the defendant pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty by the verdict of the jury; and he then moved in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the proceedings were void for want of jurisdiction; that the affidavit was void because it does not aver the value or the ownership of the stolen property; and that the city court had no jurisdiction of the case. The court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment, and rendered judgment on the verdict, to which ruling the defendant excepted.

John Gindrat Winter , for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Martin, for the State.

CLOPTON J.

After a verdict of guilty had been returned, appellant moved for arrest of judgment, on the ground that the affidavit on which the justice of the peace issued his warrant of arrest charges no criminal offense of which the justice had jurisdiction, by reason whereof the proceedings before him, including the judgment of conviction and sentence, from which the defendant took an appeal to the city court, are void. The contention is that, the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to try criminal offenses being statutory, the facts out of which the jurisdiction proceeds must affirmatively appear from the proceedings; and as the justice has jurisdiction of larceny only when the value of the property taken does not exceed $10, the value is a jurisdictional fact. In respect to the trial of cases taken by appeal from the judgment of a justice, section 4231, Code 1886, provides: "The trial in the circuit or city court shall be de novo, and without any indictment or presentment by the grand jury, but the solicitor shall make a brief statement of the cause of complaint." It is well settled that when the defendant fails to make any objection to the sufficiency of the affidavit before the justice, and takes the case by appeal into the circuit or city court, where the trial is de novo, a complaint may be filed by the solicitor properly charging the offense with which the accused was charged before the justice and no objection can be made to any inaccuracies or imperfection in the proceedings before him Tatum v. State, 66 Ala. 465; Blankenshire v. State, 70 Ala. 10. This general rule is not controverted, but it is insisted that the city court, being prohibited by the constitution to try any person for an indictable offense by information, does not acquire jurisdiction by appeal to try a case de novo, without an indictment or presentment by a grand jury, when the proceedings before the justice are void; and that in such case the city court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, only by virtue of its original jurisdiction over the subject-matter. Whether in this contention counsel have failed to observe the distinction between jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the mode by which a particular case may be brought within the jurisdiction of the court, or whether, after appeal,...