Roseberry v. State
This text of 50 Ala. 160 (Roseberry 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.
Opinion
B. F. SAFFOLD, J.
Thechargeof the court is erroneous. Grime is inseparable from evil intention, and the intention of one person cannot be imputed to another.
2. The indictment is defective, in not setting out the Christian name of the laborer or servant. The prosecution is not unlike that for decoying away a child, or kidnapping a person, wherein the forms prescribed in the Revised Code require the' name of such child or person to be mentioned. When it is necessary to allege the name, the allegation must be sufficiently-descriptive to establish identity; else the defendant may be' embarrassed in his defence, and might not have the benefit of the judgment in another prosecution for the same offence. When the name is unknown, it may be so alleged without further identification, as in the case of an accused person. Rev. Code, § 4113; Bryant v. The State, 36 Ala. 270.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
50 Ala. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roseberry-v-state-ala-1874.