Cowles v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Cowles v. State

50 Ala. 454

DecidedJanuary 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 50 Ala. 454 (Cowles 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

Cowles v. State, 50 Ala. 454 (Ala. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The statute under which the indictment was found declares, that “ Any person, who fraudu[456]*456lently exhibits any false sample of any cotton, or of any other article or commodity, by means whereof any person is injured, must, on conviction, be fined not less than fifty dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months.” The exhibition of a false sample of cotton is not made an offence; nor is such fraudulent exhibition so made, unless somebody is injured thereby. But the gist of the offence declared is the fraudulent exhibition. The statute does not confine it to the person intended to be injured by the offender, but embraces any one else whom his conduct may entrap. The indictment is sufficient.

2. The evidence in respect to the cost of sending cotton to Mobile, was irrelevant. The legal standard for ascertaining and measuring the damage, is the difference in value between the cotton as delivered and the quality as represented by the sample, at the place and date of sale. The sending of the cotton to Mobile, was a matter with which the accused had nothing to do. It was not a necessary or reasonable result of his fraud.

3. The testimony of Wilson, in respect to the date of shipment to Mobile, was properly admitted, under the authority of Wright v. Bolling, 27 Ala. 259.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

The statute under which the indictment was found declares, that “ Any person, who fraudu[456]*456lently exhibits any false sample of any cotton, or of any other article or commodity, by means whereof any person is injured, must, on conviction, be fined not less than fifty dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months.” The exhibition of a false sample of cotton is not made an offence; nor is such fraudulent exhibition so made, unless somebody is injured thereby. But the gist of the offence declared is the fraudulent exhibition. The statute does not confine it to the person intended to be injured by the offender, but embraces any one else whom his conduct may entrap. The indictment is sufficient.

2. The evidence in respect to the cost of sending cotton to Mobile, was irrelevant. The legal standard for ascertaining and measuring the damage, is the difference in value between the cotton as delivered and the quality as represented by the sample, at the place and date of sale. The sending of the cotton to Mobile, was a matter with which the accused had nothing to do. It was not a necessary or reasonable result of his fraud.

3. The testimony of Wilson, in respect to the date of shipment to Mobile, was properly admitted, under the authority of Wright v. Bolling, 27 Ala. 259.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Ala. 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowles-v-state-ala-1874.

Opinion

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack