Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Johnson v. State

105 Ala. 113

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 105 Ala. 113 (Johnson v. State) 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

Johnson v. State, 105 Ala. 113 (Ala. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

McOLELLAN, J.

—

The defendant having appealed from the justice’s ■ court to the criminal court of Pike county, the cause was in the latter court for trial de novo, without regard to any inaccuracies or imperfections in the proceedings before the justice.—Tatum v. The State, 66 Ala. 465; Blankenshire v. The State, 70 Ala. 10; Code §§ 4224, 4243; Acts 1888-9, pp. 631, et seg., §§ 2, 3, 12. The motion of defendant to dismiss the appeal, &c., and his plea in abatement, each of which were based on alleged inaccuracies and imperfections in the proceedings before the justice, were, therefore, without merit.

The defendant is charged with the offense of shooting along or across a ‘public road. — Code, § 4095. The bill of exceptions purports to set out all the evidence in the case. It contains no evidence that the road along or across which the shooting was done was a public road. The case was, therefore, not made out; and the trial court should have given the general affirmative charge to find the defendant not guilty, if the jury believed all the evidence in the case.

For the error committed in refusing this request, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

McOLELLAN, J.

—

The defendant having appealed from the justice’s ■ court to the criminal court of Pike county, the cause was in the latter court for trial de novo, without regard to any inaccuracies or imperfections in the proceedings before the justice.—Tatum v. The State, 66 Ala. 465; Blankenshire v. The State, 70 Ala. 10; Code §§ 4224, 4243; Acts 1888-9, pp. 631, et seg., §§ 2, 3, 12. The motion of defendant to dismiss the appeal, &c., and his plea in abatement, each of which were based on alleged inaccuracies and imperfections in the proceedings before the justice, were, therefore, without merit.

The defendant is charged with the offense of shooting along or across a ‘public road. — Code, § 4095. The bill of exceptions purports to set out all the evidence in the case. It contains no evidence that the road along or across which the shooting was done was a public road. The case was, therefore, not made out; and the trial court should have given the general affirmative charge to find the defendant not guilty, if the jury believed all the evidence in the case.

For the error committed in refusing this request, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 Ala. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-ala-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack