Samples v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Samples v. State

112 So. 537, 22 Ala. App. 81, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 49

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1927

Docket8 Div. 465.

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 537 (Samples 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

Samples v. State, 112 So. 537, 22 Ala. App. 81, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 49 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was originally affirmed, for the reason that the only question presented was the decision of the trial court on the merits, no jury having been demanded, and, following all of the decisions relative to presumptions in favor of the findings of the lower court on the facts, an affirmance followed a consideration of the record. No opinion was found to be necessary.

On application for rehearing appellant’s counsel files a brief insisting that the cause should be reversed, because there is no allegation or proof that the defendant was ordered to-leave the.premises by the party in possession within six months preceding the commencement of the prosecution. This would have been necessary under section 5554 of the Code of 1923, but the prosecution in the present case is brought under section 5560 of the Code of 1923, and charges the defendant with having willfully destroyed or injured an outstanding crop on the lands' of another. It will be observed, therefore, that proof of previous warning is not necessary, and that appellant’s counsel has entirely misconceived the character of the prosecution.

Application for rehearing overruled.

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

On Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was originally affirmed, for the reason that the only question presented was the decision of the trial court on the merits, no jury having been demanded, and, following all of the decisions relative to presumptions in favor of the findings of the lower court on the facts, an affirmance followed a consideration of the record. No opinion was found to be necessary.

On application for rehearing appellant’s counsel files a brief insisting that the cause should be reversed, because there is no allegation or proof that the defendant was ordered to-leave the.premises by the party in possession within six months preceding the commencement of the prosecution. This would have been necessary under section 5554 of the Code of 1923, but the prosecution in the present case is brought under section 5560 of the Code of 1923, and charges the defendant with having willfully destroyed or injured an outstanding crop on the lands' of another. It will be observed, therefore, that proof of previous warning is not necessary, and that appellant’s counsel has entirely misconceived the character of the prosecution.

Application for rehearing overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 537, 22 Ala. App. 81, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samples-v-state-alactapp-1927.