Everage v. State

113 Ala. 102
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 113 Ala. 102 (Everage 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
Everage v. State, 113 Ala. 102 (Ala. 1896).

Opinion

MoCLELLAN, J.

The issue being whether the defendants agreed and conspired together to whip Jack Cox, the witness Dave King testified as follows : "Dick Everage, (one of the defendants) asked me what I knew about the Johnnie White Cap fellows. He wanted to know if I saw a light come from his house that Sunday night before. He asked me did I hear anyone call out the Beeves boys, (also defendants). I told him ‘No.’ He said that he had heard that I did. He turned around and said, ‘While you are following up we Johnnie White Cap fellows, you had better attend to your own business . ’ ” And. the witness Tisdale testified in substance that soon after the alleged' whipping of Jack Cox, Dick Everage toldliim that “he belonged to a band bound by oath to whip sassy negroes,” and that Furney Everage, some of the Reeves boys, Luke Hardin, George and .Jess Reeves, who are defendants, also belonged to this band. The defendants’ counsel moved severally to exclude the testimony of these witnesses as to all the defendants except Dick Everage, and also for an instruction to the jury limiting such testimony to Dick Everage. These motions were overruled. Manifestly the effect and operation of this evidence should have been limited to the defendant who made the statements deposed to, as they were not made in the prosecution of the objects of the conspiracy alleged, but after such conspiracy had .been carried out and the purposes of the unlawful combination had been accomplished; and none of the other alleged conspirators were present when they were made. The court erred in declining to so limit the effect of this evidence.

The other rulings below complained of here are free from error.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Ingle v. State
415 So. 2d 1225 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1982)
Guntharp v. State
308 So. 2d 722 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1974)
Edwards v. State
185 So. 2d 393 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1966)
Godwin v. State
184 So. 2d 368 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1964)
Connelly v. State
1 So. 2d 606 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1941)
Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Murphy
166 So. 604 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Morris v. State
149 So. 359 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1933)
Jones v. State
126 So. 178 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1930)
Bachelor v. State
113 So. 67 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Blair v. State
99 So. 314 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Durden v. State
93 So. 342 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Delaney v. State
87 So. 183 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Patterson v. State
79 So. 459 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Lowman v. State
50 So. 43 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 Ala. 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everage-v-state-ala-1896.