Monroe v. City of Attalla

Alabama Court of Appeals

Monroe v. City of Attalla

142 So. 924, 25 Ala. App. 659

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1932

Docket7 Div. 895.

StatusPublished

This text of 142 So. 924 (Monroe v. City of Attalla) 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

Monroe v. City of Attalla, 142 So. 924, 25 Ala. App. 659 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was convicted on appeal in the circuit court for a violation of section 50' of the Penal Code of the city of Attalla, which provides: “Any person who carries concealed about his person a bowie knife, knife, razor or instrument of like kind or description or a pistol or fire arms of any other kind or description, or an air gun, must on conviction be fined not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars.” Proof was made by the city that within its jurisdiction and within the limitation of prosecution the defendant carried a pistol concealed about his person. It is contended by appellant that the proof was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. We find to the contrary.

The ordinance of the city was properly pleaded and proven by the city clerk, who was the custodian of the city’s records.

We find no. error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was convicted on appeal in the circuit court for a violation of section 50' of the Penal Code of the city of Attalla, which provides: “Any person who carries concealed about his person a bowie knife, knife, razor or instrument of like kind or description or a pistol or fire arms of any other kind or description, or an air gun, must on conviction be fined not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars.” Proof was made by the city that within its jurisdiction and within the limitation of prosecution the defendant carried a pistol concealed about his person. It is contended by appellant that the proof was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. We find to the contrary.

The ordinance of the city was properly pleaded and proven by the city clerk, who was the custodian of the city’s records.

We find no. error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 So. 924, 25 Ala. App. 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-v-city-of-attalla-alactapp-1932.