Williams v. State

Decision Date02 March 1907
Citation150 Ala. 84,43 So. 182
PartiesWILLIAMS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama 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: "On the 22d day of November, 1905, came into open court the grand jury, and the foreman reported that one member of the grand jury, namely, O. C. Gaut, was sick and desired to be excused. On investigation and hearing the evidence, the court decided that juror was sick and unable to further serve as member of said jury, and was excused from further service by the court. The number of said jury being reduced below 15, namely, to 14, the sheriff was ordered by the court to summon two qualified citizens from which to complete said grand jury. Thereupon the sheriff summoned the following named persons: H. C. Ozbirn and John Warren--whose names were by the order of the court written on slips of paper and folded so that the names could not be seen, and placed in a hat as a substitute for a box, and the sheriff by the direction of the court, drew therefrom the name of one of said persons, to wit, H. C. Ozbirn, who, on examination by the court, was found to possess the qualifications of grand juror, and was duly sworn as a member of said grand jury for the remainder of the term." 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.

McCLELLAN J.

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
4 cases
  • Roan v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 9 Junio 1932
    ... ... 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
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1937
  • Birdsong v. State, CR-04-0550.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 Mayo 2005
    ...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
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 30 Junio 1925
    ... ... 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 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT