Williams v. State
Decision Date | 02 March 1907 |
Citation | 150 Ala. 84,43 So. 182 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Joseph H. Nathan, Judge.
W. A Williams appeals from a conviction. Reversed and remanded.
The following is a copy of the record as to supplying a juror in this cause: The indictment, as to its first count, was as follows: "W. A. Williams, whose Christian name is otherwise unknown to the grand jury engaged in or carried on the business of a peddler without a license and contrary to law." The following demurrer was interposed to each count of the indictment separately "The same does not allege or show the business in which defendant engaged without a license, and fails to allege or state the kind of goods, wares, or merchandise which defendant is charged with having handled or sold as a peddler." These demurrers were overruled. The defendant was put upon his trial, and convicted under the first count in the indictment.
Davis & Fite, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of peddling without license. A motion was made in the court below to quash the indictment upon the grounds First, that it does not affirmatively appear that the indictment was presented to the court by the foreman of the grand jury in the presence of 11 other jurors; second, that section 5023 was not complied with in discharging a sick juror and supplying his place, so as to complete the grand jury. The first ground of the motion was properly overruled. McKee's Case, 82 Ala. 32, 2 So. 451. The other objection is vain, because the record shows a substantial compliance...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roan v. State
... ... the cause was set for trial ... The ... indictment was duly indorsed and presented; the indorsement ... was "A True Bill" signed by the foreman; and this ... was according to the statute. Spigener v. State, 62 ... Ala. 383; Williams v. State, 150 Ala. 84, 43 So ... 182. This provision is mandatory. Wesley v. State, ... 52 Ala. 182; Ex parte Winston, 52 Ala. 419; Mose v ... State, 35 Ala. 421; McKee v. State, 82 Ala. 32, ... 2 So. 451; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So ... 203; Collins v. State, 23 Ala. App. 104, 121 ... ...
- Eastman, Gardiner & Co. v. Caldwell
-
Birdsong v. State, CR-04-0550.
...case includes, signifies that the presentment in open court was in the presence of at least 11 other grand jurors. See Williams v. State, 150 Ala. 84, 43 So. 182 (1907); McKee v. State, 82 Ala. 32, 2 So. 451 (1887); Russell v. State, 33 Ala. 366 (1859); and Meadows v. State, 105 So. 428, 21......
-
Meadows v. State
... ... the record failing to affirmatively show that the indictment ... was returned into court in the presence of the required ... number of grand jurors is concerned, we think appellant's ... contention has already been answered adversely to him by the ... Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. State, 150 ... Ala. 84, 43 So. 182 ... After ... the jury had regularly returned a verdict finding the ... defendant guilty "as charged in the indictment," ... the trial court rendered judgment as follows: ... "It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court ... that the ... ...