Hearn v. State

48 So. 344, 158 Ala. 47, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 589
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 12, 1909·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The indictment avers the property, alleged to have been larcenously taken, to have been that of the “Montgomery Street Railway, a corporation.” The evidence shows, without dispute, that the property involved was that of the Montgomery Traction Company. There is no testimony tending to connect the “Montgomery Street Railway, a corporation,” with the subject of the alleged larceny, nor to show the identity of tlie two entities. The variance present between the allegation of ownership of the property and the proof thereof is, of course, fatal.

The affirmative charge requested for the defendant should have been given. It is unnecessary to treat other exceptions reserved. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

S'impson, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.

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

Hearn v. State, 48 So. 344, 158 Ala. 47, 1909 Ala. LEXIS 589 (Ala. 1909).

48 So. 344 (Hearn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alldredge v. State
431 So. 2d 1358 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1983)
Peek v. State
96 So. 2d 706 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1957)