Mobley v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Mobley v. State

44 So. 379, 151 Ala. 123, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 538

DecidedJune 13, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 44 So. 379 (Mobley 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

Mobley v. State, 44 So. 379, 151 Ala. 123, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 538 (Ala. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

MoCLELLAN, J.

Any person who goes into or “sufficiently near to the dwelling house of another and in the presence or hearing of the family of the occupant thereof, or any member of his family,” uses abusive, insulting, or obscene language, is guilty of a violation of section 4306, Code 1896, the present statute. The use of such language within the curtilage is not necessarily sufficient to warrant a conviction; much less the use thereof within the limits stated by the trial judge in his oral charge.. The statute refers only to the dwelling house, and that term is sufficiently definite for all occasions. The object sought to be conserved by the statute was the protection of the house. The oral charge expounded the statute beyond its meaning and terms, and was, therefore, erroneous.

For the error stated, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

MoCLELLAN, J.

Any person who goes into or “sufficiently near to the dwelling house of another and in the presence or hearing of the family of the occupant thereof, or any member of his family,” uses abusive, insulting, or obscene language, is guilty of a violation of section 4306, Code 1896, the present statute. The use of such language within the curtilage is not necessarily sufficient to warrant a conviction; much less the use thereof within the limits stated by the trial judge in his oral charge.. The statute refers only to the dwelling house, and that term is sufficiently definite for all occasions. The object sought to be conserved by the statute was the protection of the house. The oral charge expounded the statute beyond its meaning and terms, and was, therefore, erroneous.

For the error stated, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 So. 379, 151 Ala. 123, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mobley-v-state-ala-1907.