Gibson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gibson v. State

133 So. 310, 24 Ala. App. 229, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 228

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1931

Docket8 Div. 154.

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 310 (Gibson 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

Gibson v. State, 133 So. 310, 24 Ala. App. 229, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 228 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

The affidavit was signed before T. J. Newsom, who gave his official designation as J. P., when in fact he was a N. P. ex officio J. P. Motion was made to strike the affidavit on that ground. There is no merit in this contention. When an appointment is made under section 9251 of the Code of 1923, and the party so appointed qualifies, he becomes to all intents and purposes a justice of the peace, and the fact that in designating his official position he only uses the letters “J. P.” will not invalidate his acts as a justice of the peace ex officio.

The facts were in conflict as to the guilt of the defendant, and we see no good reason for disturbing the finding.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMPORD, J.

The affidavit was signed before T. J. Newsom, who gave his official designation as J. P., when in fact he was a N. P. ex officio J. P. Motion was made to strike the affidavit on that ground. There is no merit in this contention. When an appointment is made under section 9251 of the Code of 1923, and the party so appointed qualifies, he becomes to all intents and purposes a justice of the peace, and the fact that in designating his official position he only uses the letters “J. P.” will not invalidate his acts as a justice of the peace ex officio.

The facts were in conflict as to the guilt of the defendant, and we see no good reason for disturbing the finding.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 310, 24 Ala. App. 229, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibson-v-state-alactapp-1931.