Golson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Golson v. State

73 So. 753, 15 Ala. App. 420, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 2

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1917

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 So. 753 (Golson 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

Golson v. State, 73 So. 753, 15 Ala. App. 420, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 2 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

The defendant is indicted by the name of “Minnie Golson.” The plea in abatement for misnomer, which is based on the alleged fact that her true name was “Minnie Gholston,” was demurred to on the ground that the names “Golson” and “Gholston” are idem sonans. The court decided that the variance was not sufficient to support a plea in abatement on the ground of misnomer, and sustained the demurrers to the plea.

We think the trial court correct in its ruling. It is the familiar rule that the law does not regard the spelling so much *421 as the sound of names, and that, by the doctrine of idem sonans, two names, although spelled differently, if they sound alike, or are pronounced alike, and the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing between the two, are to be regarded as the same. Usually the insertion or omission of a “t” before thé ending “son” is held immaterial. — 29 Cyc. 275, and authorities cited in note 57. See the following cases, which will be found to support our holding: Rooks v. State, 83 Ala. 79, 3 South. 720; Burton v. State, 10 Ala. App. 214, 65 South. 91.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

The defendant is indicted by the name of “Minnie Golson.” The plea in abatement for misnomer, which is based on the alleged fact that her true name was “Minnie Gholston,” was demurred to on the ground that the names “Golson” and “Gholston” are idem sonans. The court decided that the variance was not sufficient to support a plea in abatement on the ground of misnomer, and sustained the demurrers to the plea.

We think the trial court correct in its ruling. It is the familiar rule that the law does not regard the spelling so much *421 as the sound of names, and that, by the doctrine of idem sonans, two names, although spelled differently, if they sound alike, or are pronounced alike, and the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing between the two, are to be regarded as the same. Usually the insertion or omission of a “t” before thé ending “son” is held immaterial. — 29 Cyc. 275, and authorities cited in note 57. See the following cases, which will be found to support our holding: Rooks v. State, 83 Ala. 79, 3 South. 720; Burton v. State, 10 Ala. App. 214, 65 South. 91.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 753, 15 Ala. App. 420, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golson-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack