Bynum v. State

57 So. 1024, 3 Ala. App. 117, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 401
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 8, 1912·Published

Opinion

WALKER, P. J.

Tbe indictment in this case charged that tbe defendant, “a person liable to road duty, willfully failed or refused, after legal notice, to work the public road, either in person or by substitute, without a sufficient excuse therefor, against tbe peace,” etc. Tbe allegation of tbe commission of tbe offense substantially followed tbe terms of tbe statute creating it. Tbe indictment sufficiently designated tbe offense, without- specifying what road tbe defendant failed to work.—Brown v. State, 63 Ala. 97. Tbe demurrer to it was properly overruled.

Tbe record presents no other question for review.

Affirmed.

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

Bynum v. State, 57 So. 1024, 3 Ala. App. 117, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 401 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

57 So. 1024 (Bynum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brown v. State
63 Ala. 97 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1879)