Frederick v. State

138 So. 426, 24 Ala. App. 569, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 168
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided December 15, 1931·No. 6 Div. 131.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

RICE, J.

Prosecution for public drunkenness. Code 1923, § 3883.

The case having originated in the county court, it was permissible, on defendant’s appeal to the circuit court, for the “complaint,” called for by Code 1923, § 3843, to be signed and filed by the “deputy” or “county” solicitor. Code 1923, § 5522. In the absence of anything to the contrary, we assume he acted at the “direction” of the circuit solicitor.

We think it obvious that a “public road” is a “public place,” within the purview of Code 1923, § 3883. The fact that the court declined to so declare it, but left the jury free to decide that it was not, was in appellant’s favor. Hence this action of the court cannot avail for reversal. Supreme Court Rule 45.

*570 Therewas substantial evidence that appellant was guilty as charged. Therefore the case was properly submitted to the jury.

We discover nowhere prejudicial error, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Frederick v. State, 138 So. 426, 24 Ala. App. 569, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 168 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

138 So. 426 (Frederick v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Young v. City of Hokes Bluff
611 So. 2d 401 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Pearson v. City of Huntsville
168 So. 2d 24 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1964)
Byrom v. State
73 S.W.2d 854 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1934)