Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 10 February 1914 |
| Citation | 64 So. 510,10 Ala.App. 158 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from City Court of Andalusia; Ed T. Albritton, Judge.
P.O Wilson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 64 So. 509.
The special findings of fact made by the court was that defendant, P.O. Wilson, at a time during the latter part of the year 1912, the indictment being filed February 13, 1913 sold to J.G. Foxworth a half pint of whisky, for which Foxworth paid him the sum of 50 cents, and that such sale occurred in Covington county, and within 12 months next before the finding of the indictment, and that the general character of defendant in the community was good.
A Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the undisputed evidence the defendant had waived his right to a trial by jury by not having demanded such a trial within the time allowed by law for that purpose. Acts Sp.Sess.1909, pp. 63, 92, § 32; Moss v. State, 3 Ala.App. 189, 58 So. 62. See, also, Wilson v. State, 64 So. 509.
Section 32 of the special act in question is not violative of the constitutional provision (section 11) that the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. See authorities collected and cited in the Criminal Code in connection with this section. Nor does the section or act in question contravene any other constitutional requirement urged against it.
The case was tried by the court without a jury, and a special finding was required under the provisions of section 5360 of the Code, and such a finding, shown to have been regularly made, is set out in due form in the transcript. In reviewing the judgment appealed from, the only matter left open for review in this particular is whether a proper judgment, supported by the facts so found, was rendered by the court on the facts as found. Pell City Mfg. Co. v. Cooper, 172 Ala. 532, 537, 55 So. 214; Chandler & Jones v. Crossland et al., 126 Ala. 176, 28 So. 420; W.U. Tel. Co. v. Anniston Cordage Co., 6 Ala.App. 351, 361, 59 So. 757. An examination of the facts as specially found by the court shows them, as found, without resort to and unaided by extrinsic evidence appearing in the bill of exceptions, to furnish sufficient support for the judgment rendered.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the trial court will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Washington v. State
-
State v. Berg
... ... It does not deny a party his right to a ... jury trial. * * * This court has held that, in the trial of ... misdemeanors, statutes requiring a demand for a jury before ... trial are not unconstitutional. Hoffman v. State, 98 Ohio St ... 137, 120 N.E. 234.' ... Wilson v ... State, 10 Ala.App. 158, 64 So. 510, holds defendant 'had ... waived his right to a trial by jury by not having demanded ... such a trial within the time allowed by law for that ... purpose.' The act in question was not violative of ... constitutional provisions that the right of trial ... ...
-
Johnson v. McFry
...the only question open for consideration is whether the judgment rendered is supported by the facts as found by the court. Wilson v. State, 10 Ala.App. 158, 64 So. 510, authorities cited on this proposition on page 160. But the court must directly and affirmatively find every fact in issue ......