Powell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Powell v. State

75 So. 269, 16 Ala. App. 63, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 125

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1917

Docket5 Div. 260.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 So. 269 (Powell 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

Powell v. State, 75 So. 269, 16 Ala. App. 63, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 125 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

There is nothing in the statutes of this state that requires persons owning or having the possession of cattle infected with or exposed to ticks to dip such cattle in “a standard arsenical solution” after notice. Curlee v. State, ante, p. 62, 75 South. 268.

While the statute (Code 1907, § 758), confers upon the state live stock sanitary board power to enact “such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary for governing the movement, transportation, or disposition of live stock that may be quarantined * * * on account of being affected with, or exposed to,” contagious or communicable diseases, or, infested with the carriers of such diseases, and the statute (Code 1907, § 7083, as amended by Act approved April 22,1911 [Acts 1911, p. 613]) denounces the violation of such rules as a misdemeanor, the courts will not take judicial notice of such rules and regulations, and an indictment for the violation of this clause of the statute, to charge an offense, must allege the existence of such a rule or regulation, and that the act charged against the defendant is in violation of such rule. Curlee v. State, supra.

The indictment in this case will not support the judgment of conviction. Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 South. 54; Butler v. State, 130 Ala. 127, 30 South. 338.

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

BROWN, P. J.

There is nothing in the statutes of this state that requires persons owning or having the possession of cattle infected with or exposed to ticks to dip such cattle in “a standard arsenical solution” after notice. Curlee v. State, ante, p. 62, 75 South. 268.

While the statute (Code 1907, § 758), confers upon the state live stock sanitary board power to enact “such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary for governing the movement, transportation, or disposition of live stock that may be quarantined * * * on account of being affected with, or exposed to,” contagious or communicable diseases, or, infested with the carriers of such diseases, and the statute (Code 1907, § 7083, as amended by Act approved April 22,1911 [Acts 1911, p. 613]) denounces the violation of such rules as a misdemeanor, the courts will not take judicial notice of such rules and regulations, and an indictment for the violation of this clause of the statute, to charge an offense, must allege the existence of such a rule or regulation, and that the act charged against the defendant is in violation of such rule. Curlee v. State, supra.

The indictment in this case will not support the judgment of conviction. Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 South. 54; Butler v. State, 130 Ala. 127, 30 South. 338.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 269, 16 Ala. App. 63, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack