Heath v. Devaughn

37 Ala. 677
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 Ala. 677 (Heath v. Devaughn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Heath v. Devaughn, 37 Ala. 677 (Ala. 1861).

Opinion

STONE, J.

'We deem it unneeessary, in this case, to

consider whether‘the language averred in the complaint to have been spoken by the defendant, sufficiently identifies: and charges the offense denounced by section 3285 of the Code. — See Code, 2224 ; Perdue v. Burnett, Min. 138-; Shirgenegger v. Taylor, 2 Brev. 4S0. 'On another ground, we think the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. The punishment for trading illegally with slaves is a money fine, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail, not exceeding six months. A mere trading with slaves, without the consent of the master, owner, or overseer of such slaves, does not,-per se, involve moral turpitude; and the punishment is not infamous, in that sense which constitutes the-words actionable of-.themselves. — Hillhouse v. Peck, 2 S. & P. 395; Johnson v. Morrow, 9 Por. 525 ; Dudley v. Horn, 21 Ala. 379; Andress v. Koppenheafer, 3 S. & R. 255; McClung v. Ross, 5 Bin. 218; Birch v. Benton, 26 Mo. (5 Jones,) 153; Speaker v. McKenzie, ib. 255; Quinn v. O’Gara, 2 E. D. Smith, 388 ; Young v. Miller, 8 Hill, 22; McKee v. Ingalls, 4 Scam. 30. See, also, Shuttleworth v. The State, 35 Ala. 415, and authorities qb appellee’s brief.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed'.

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

Related

Shaw v. Killingsworth
106 So. 138 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Jones v. Spradlin
88 So. 373 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Ala. 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-devaughn-ala-1861.