Russau v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Russau v. State

72 So. 596, 15 Ala. App. 120, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 129

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 1, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 So. 596 (Russau 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

Russau v. State, 72 So. 596, 15 Ala. App. 120, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 129 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J. —

The defendant was tried in the circuit court on a complaint filed by the solicitor charging petit larceny, to which he interposed a plea of not guilty. The issue thus formed, being submitted to a jury, was determined against him and he appeals.

(1, 2) The questions presented arise from the refusal of defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial. There are only two ways that the jurisdiction of the cir *121 cuit court could attach in this case. The first is by indictment preferred by a grand jury impaneled in that court, and the second by appeal from some court over which the circuit court exercised appellate jurisdiction. It did not acquire jurisdiction in the method first indicated, and the only matter in the record to indicate hów the case originated is what purports to be a certified copy of the judgment of the mayor’s court of the city of Eufaula in a case styled “State v. Peter Russau.” There is no certificate of appeal, appeal bond, or other matter in the record showing that an appeal was taken by the defendant to the circuit court.

(3) The offense of petit larceny is one over which the circuit court is given original jurisdiction, and for this reason the judgment of the court is not void, and will support an appeal. — Ex parte Rodgers, 12 Ala. App. 218, 67 South. 710. This fact distinguishes the case from Gunter v. Mason, 125 Ala. 644, 27 South. 843, and others following the principles there announced. The amounts in controversy in those cases were under the minimum jurisdiction of the circuit court, and not within its original jurisdiction.

(4, 5) However, the judgment was erroneous and the motion in arrest of judgment should have been granted. — Clark v. State, 46 Ala. 307; Jones v. State, 149 Ala. 63, 43 South. 28; Lewis v. State, 160 Ala. 121, 49 South. 753.

We have examined the evidence offered on the trial, and hold that it supported the finding and verdict of the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BROWN, J. —

The defendant was tried in the circuit court on a complaint filed by the solicitor charging petit larceny, to which he interposed a plea of not guilty. The issue thus formed, being submitted to a jury, was determined against him and he appeals.

(1, 2) The questions presented arise from the refusal of defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial. There are only two ways that the jurisdiction of the cir *121 cuit court could attach in this case. The first is by indictment preferred by a grand jury impaneled in that court, and the second by appeal from some court over which the circuit court exercised appellate jurisdiction. It did not acquire jurisdiction in the method first indicated, and the only matter in the record to indicate hów the case originated is what purports to be a certified copy of the judgment of the mayor’s court of the city of Eufaula in a case styled “State v. Peter Russau.” There is no certificate of appeal, appeal bond, or other matter in the record showing that an appeal was taken by the defendant to the circuit court.

(3) The offense of petit larceny is one over which the circuit court is given original jurisdiction, and for this reason the judgment of the court is not void, and will support an appeal. — Ex parte Rodgers, 12 Ala. App. 218, 67 South. 710. This fact distinguishes the case from Gunter v. Mason, 125 Ala. 644, 27 South. 843, and others following the principles there announced. The amounts in controversy in those cases were under the minimum jurisdiction of the circuit court, and not within its original jurisdiction.

(4, 5) However, the judgment was erroneous and the motion in arrest of judgment should have been granted. — Clark v. State, 46 Ala. 307; Jones v. State, 149 Ala. 63, 43 South. 28; Lewis v. State, 160 Ala. 121, 49 South. 753.

We have examined the evidence offered on the trial, and hold that it supported the finding and verdict of the jury.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 596, 15 Ala. App. 120, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russau-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack