Stacks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Stacks v. State

103 So. 70, 20 Ala. App. 462, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 19

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 1925

Docket6 Div. 516.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 103 So. 70 (Stacks 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

Stacks v. State, 103 So. 70, 20 Ala. App. 462, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 19 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There is no bill df exceptions and therefore we cannot pass upon the written charges refused to defendant. Hallmark v. State, ante, p. 281, 101 So. 905.

The prosecution originated in the county court, based upon an affidavit charging in the alternative that the defendant “owned” or “operated,” etc. This affidavit was not objected to on the trial in the county Court, but trial was had on the plea of not guilty. Upon conviction, an appeal was taken to the circuit court where the solicitor filed a short statement as- required by the statute. This complaint of the solicitor eliminated the charge of ownership, and charged the ■ defendant with operating an unlawful fish trap for the purpose of taking fish out of the waters of this state in Walker county, and specifying wherein the trap was unlawful. The complaint of the solicitor follows the wording of the statute, Acts 1909, p. 327 (Code 1923, § 4068), and is sufficient. Oliver v. State, 16 Ala. App. 533, 79 So. 313.

The affidavit upon which the cause was tried was demurrable in the county court; but was amendable, and, being so, is sufficient to support the complaint of the solicitor, which corrects the defects in the affidavit and correctly charges the offense of which defendant was being tried. Williams v. State, 88 Ala. 80, 7 So. 101; Nailer v. State, 18 Ala. App. 127, 90 So. 131.

The Legislature, under the police power, has the power to pass reasonable statutes for the protection of fish in the streams! of the state, and in this instance we Cannot say that the regulation is unreasonable. Ev-. ery legal defense set up in the pleas was available' to defendant under the general issue, and therefore the pleas were properly disallowed.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

There is no bill df exceptions and therefore we cannot pass upon the written charges refused to defendant. Hallmark v. State, ante, p. 281, 101 So. 905.

The prosecution originated in the county court, based upon an affidavit charging in the alternative that the defendant “owned” or “operated,” etc. This affidavit was not objected to on the trial in the county Court, but trial was had on the plea of not guilty. Upon conviction, an appeal was taken to the circuit court where the solicitor filed a short statement as- required by the statute. This complaint of the solicitor eliminated the charge of ownership, and charged the ■ defendant with operating an unlawful fish trap for the purpose of taking fish out of the waters of this state in Walker county, and specifying wherein the trap was unlawful. The complaint of the solicitor follows the wording of the statute, Acts 1909, p. 327 (Code 1923, § 4068), and is sufficient. Oliver v. State, 16 Ala. App. 533, 79 So. 313.

The affidavit upon which the cause was tried was demurrable in the county court; but was amendable, and, being so, is sufficient to support the complaint of the solicitor, which corrects the defects in the affidavit and correctly charges the offense of which defendant was being tried. Williams v. State, 88 Ala. 80, 7 So. 101; Nailer v. State, 18 Ala. App. 127, 90 So. 131.

The Legislature, under the police power, has the power to pass reasonable statutes for the protection of fish in the streams! of the state, and in this instance we Cannot say that the regulation is unreasonable. Ev-. ery legal defense set up in the pleas was available' to defendant under the general issue, and therefore the pleas were properly disallowed.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 70, 20 Ala. App. 462, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stacks-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack