Pate v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Pate v. State

159 So. 894, 26 Ala. App. 675

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 27, 1934

Docket8 Div. 923.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 So. 894 (Pate 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

Pate v. State, 159 So. 894, 26 Ala. App. 675 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

*676 BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This appellant was indicted on three counts for unlawfully obtaining $5,500 from the East Lauderdale Banking Company. The three counts in the indictment are based upon the same transaction. Count 1 charges embezzlement under section 3964 of the Code 1923. Count 2 charges a violation of section 3412 of the Code 1923. Count 3 charges the appellant with larceny of the money in question. These are kindred offenses, and, as stated, are predicated upon the same transaction.

The case at bar is identical with the case of McLemore v. State, ante, p. 228, 157 So. 455. Every material point of decision here presented has been decided in the McLemore Case, supra, and upon authority of that case the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was' taken is affirmed. There is no necessity to reiterate here what has been said in the McLemore Case.

Affirmed.

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

*676 BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This appellant was indicted on three counts for unlawfully obtaining $5,500 from the East Lauderdale Banking Company. The three counts in the indictment are based upon the same transaction. Count 1 charges embezzlement under section 3964 of the Code 1923. Count 2 charges a violation of section 3412 of the Code 1923. Count 3 charges the appellant with larceny of the money in question. These are kindred offenses, and, as stated, are predicated upon the same transaction.

The case at bar is identical with the case of McLemore v. State, ante, p. 228, 157 So. 455. Every material point of decision here presented has been decided in the McLemore Case, supra, and upon authority of that case the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was' taken is affirmed. There is no necessity to reiterate here what has been said in the McLemore Case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 So. 894, 26 Ala. App. 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pate-v-state-alactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack