Henry v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Henry v. State

77 So. 969, 16 Ala. App. 389, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 62

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 12, 1918

Docket6 Div. 338.

StatusPublished

This text of 77 So. 969 (Henry 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

Henry v. State, 77 So. 969, 16 Ala. App. 389, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 62 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of grand larceny in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years. From this judgment of conviction he appeals; the appeal is taken on the record proper without bill of exceptions. The clerk of the court certifies under seal of office that the time for filing the bill of exceptions in this cause has expired, and that no bill of exceptions has been filed in his office. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any error of a reversible nature. The indictment is in regular form as required by law, and charges grand larceny. It was not subject to demurrer interposed, and the court committed no error in overruling the demurrers. The sentence pronounced was authorized by the statute prescribing the penalty for grand larceny. From the record, it appears that all the proceedings of the lower court were regular, and without error, and therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of grand larceny in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years. From this judgment of conviction he appeals; the appeal is taken on the record proper without bill of exceptions. The clerk of the court certifies under seal of office that the time for filing the bill of exceptions in this cause has expired, and that no bill of exceptions has been filed in his office. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any error of a reversible nature. The indictment is in regular form as required by law, and charges grand larceny. It was not subject to demurrer interposed, and the court committed no error in overruling the demurrers. The sentence pronounced was authorized by the statute prescribing the penalty for grand larceny. From the record, it appears that all the proceedings of the lower court were regular, and without error, and therefore, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 969, 16 Ala. App. 389, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-state-alactapp-1918.