Fennell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Fennell v. State

82 So. 569, 17 Ala. App. 121, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 140

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 21, 1919

Docket8 Div. 671.

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 569 (Fennell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fennell v. State, 82 So. 569, 17 Ala. App. 121, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 140 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The state’s witness

Shaneyfelt testified:

“I lost a bracelet watch in February, 1917, which was taken out of the dwelling house of A. C. Lockhart, in Decatur, Morgan county, Ala., between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning. I lived in the house with Mr. Lockhart, and it was taken out of my room. The watch was taken from a jewelry box on the dresser. The defendant and a boy by the name of Dunnaway were in my room that morning, and remained there some 25 or 30 minutes. A little more than an hour after they left I missed my watch. I afterwards got the watch back from policeman Bass. * * * I had a room at Mr. Lock-hart’s, 411 West Market street. * * * I rented the room from Mrs. Irene Lockhart. * * * He and his wife both lived there together. * * * I had rented a room from Mrs. Lockhart about a year. While I occupied one room, Mr. and Mrs. Lockhart occupied the balance of the house.”

This evidence tends to sustain the averments of the indictment that the watch was *122 taken “from the dwelling house of A. C. Lockhart,” and the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence, on the ground that there was a variance between the averments and proof, was properly overruled, and the affirmative charge requested by the defendant was properly refused. Jackson v. State, 102 Ala. 167, 15 South. 344.

[2] It was not permissible for the defendant to show that the witness Slianeyfelt was a woman of lewd habits, or that the place where she lived was “of low character and a notorious place,” or that no other families-except negroes lived near the witness. Terry v. State, 15 Ala. App. 665, 74 South. 757; Coates v. State, 5 Ala. App. 182, 59 South. 323; McCutchen v. Loggins, 109 Ala. 457, 19 South. 810; McQueen v. State, 108 Ala. 54, 18 South. 843; Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52, 46 South. 273; Story v. State, 178 Ala. 98, 59 South. 480.

We-find no error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The state’s witness

Shaneyfelt testified:

“I lost a bracelet watch in February, 1917, which was taken out of the dwelling house of A. C. Lockhart, in Decatur, Morgan county, Ala., between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning. I lived in the house with Mr. Lockhart, and it was taken out of my room. The watch was taken from a jewelry box on the dresser. The defendant and a boy by the name of Dunnaway were in my room that morning, and remained there some 25 or 30 minutes. A little more than an hour after they left I missed my watch. I afterwards got the watch back from policeman Bass. * * * I had a room at Mr. Lock-hart’s, 411 West Market street. * * * I rented the room from Mrs. Irene Lockhart. * * * He and his wife both lived there together. * * * I had rented a room from Mrs. Lockhart about a year. While I occupied one room, Mr. and Mrs. Lockhart occupied the balance of the house.”

This evidence tends to sustain the averments of the indictment that the watch was *122 taken “from the dwelling house of A. C. Lockhart,” and the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence, on the ground that there was a variance between the averments and proof, was properly overruled, and the affirmative charge requested by the defendant was properly refused. Jackson v. State, 102 Ala. 167, 15 South. 344.

[2] It was not permissible for the defendant to show that the witness Slianeyfelt was a woman of lewd habits, or that the place where she lived was “of low character and a notorious place,” or that no other families-except negroes lived near the witness. Terry v. State, 15 Ala. App. 665, 74 South. 757; Coates v. State, 5 Ala. App. 182, 59 South. 323; McCutchen v. Loggins, 109 Ala. 457, 19 South. 810; McQueen v. State, 108 Ala. 54, 18 South. 843; Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52, 46 South. 273; Story v. State, 178 Ala. 98, 59 South. 480.

We-find no error in the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 569, 17 Ala. App. 121, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-state-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack