McDade v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

McDade v. State

20 Ala. 81

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 15, 1852

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 20 Ala. 81 (McDade 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

McDade v. State, 20 Ala. 81 (Ala. 1852).

Pincite

Opinion

CHILTON, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted as an overseer of a public road, for failing to keep the causeways and bridges, within his precinct, in good repair, but suffering them to remain uncleaned and out of repair for the space of ten days at one time, “between the time of his appointment and that period when it was to cease, to-wit: between the tenth day of November, 1850, and the tenth day of December, 1850, without being hindered by high water, bad weather, or other sufficient cause,” &c.

The general rule requires the pleader to state some time when the offence was committed, within the period prescribed as a bar to the prosecution; but it is too well settled now to be questioned, that where the time is averred under a videlicet, the prosecutor is not held to proof of it as laid, but may prove that the offence was committed at any time before the finding of the indictment, and within the period prescribed as a bar. 1 Chit. Cr. Law 226.; Roscoe Cr. Ev. 109; see also as to the office of the videlicet, Pharr et al. v. [83]*83Bachelor, 3 Ala. Rep. 244; Carlisle v. Davis, 9 ib. 860; Crawford v. Canfield, 6 Ala. Rep. 153.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

CHILTON, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted as an overseer of a public road, for failing to keep the causeways and bridges, within his precinct, in good repair, but suffering them to remain uncleaned and out of repair for the space of ten days at one time, “between the time of his appointment and that period when it was to cease, to-wit: between the tenth day of November, 1850, and the tenth day of December, 1850, without being hindered by high water, bad weather, or other sufficient cause,” &c.

The general rule requires the pleader to state some time when the offence was committed, within the period prescribed as a bar to the prosecution; but it is too well settled now to be questioned, that where the time is averred under a videlicet, the prosecutor is not held to proof of it as laid, but may prove that the offence was committed at any time before the finding of the indictment, and within the period prescribed as a bar. 1 Chit. Cr. Law 226.; Roscoe Cr. Ev. 109; see also as to the office of the videlicet, Pharr et al. v. [83]*83Bachelor, 3 Ala. Rep. 244; Carlisle v. Davis, 9 ib. 860; Crawford v. Canfield, 6 Ala. Rep. 153.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ala. 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdade-v-state-ala-1852.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack