Adams v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Adams v. State

67 Ala. 89

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 67 Ala. 89 (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. State, 67 Ala. 89 (Ala. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMEEYILLE, J.

— The indictment in this case charges [90]*90the appellant, Adams, and one William Mincher, his co-defendant, with an affray, for fighting together in a public place. Mincher filed a plea in abatement alleging a misnomer, and averring his name to be William Minshen, and that he was known and called by that name. The court sustained this plea and quashed the indictment as to him ; Adams, however, was put to trial upon the plea of not guilty.

Under this iudictment evidence was allowed to be introduced, against appellant’s objection, showing that he and one William Minshen fought together in a public place in the county of Cherokee within twelve months before tbe finding of the indictment.

We think this was error, for tbe reason that tbe names Mincher and Minshen are not idem sonans, and there was a clear variance between tbe name proved and that alleged in the indictment, which is fatal. Iu contemplation of law they were two different and distinct persons. The plea of misnomer was properly sustained, and the evidence objected to should have been excluded.. — Whart. Cr. Ev. (8th Ed.) §§ 94, 6; Lawrence v. State, 59 Ala. 61; 1 Brickell’s Digest, p. 6, §§ 84-89.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOMEEYILLE, J.

— The indictment in this case charges [90]*90the appellant, Adams, and one William Mincher, his co-defendant, with an affray, for fighting together in a public place. Mincher filed a plea in abatement alleging a misnomer, and averring his name to be William Minshen, and that he was known and called by that name. The court sustained this plea and quashed the indictment as to him ; Adams, however, was put to trial upon the plea of not guilty.

Under this iudictment evidence was allowed to be introduced, against appellant’s objection, showing that he and one William Minshen fought together in a public place in the county of Cherokee within twelve months before tbe finding of the indictment.

We think this was error, for tbe reason that tbe names Mincher and Minshen are not idem sonans, and there was a clear variance between tbe name proved and that alleged in the indictment, which is fatal. Iu contemplation of law they were two different and distinct persons. The plea of misnomer was properly sustained, and the evidence objected to should have been excluded.. — Whart. Cr. Ev. (8th Ed.) §§ 94, 6; Lawrence v. State, 59 Ala. 61; 1 Brickell’s Digest, p. 6, §§ 84-89.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ala. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-ala-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack