Stollenwerk v. State
This text of 55 Ala. 142 (Stollenwerk 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
Any animal in tbe second year of its growth is a “yearling.” The description in tbe present indictment is too indefinite. It may include many animals, for tbe stealing of wbicb tbe act of February 20, 1875, does not provide. If the indictment bad charged, that tbe animal stolen, describing it, was “an animal of tbe cow kind,” it would have been sufficient. Nor is tbe indictment a sufficient charge of petit larceny. Tbe animal may have been one wbicb bad no [143]*143recognized money value. The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Let the prisoner remain in custody, until discharged by due course of law.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
55 Ala. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stollenwerk-v-state-ala-1876.