White v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

White v. State

47 So. 192, 156 Ala. 111, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 81

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 47 So. 192 (White 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.

Bluebook

White v. State, 47 So. 192, 156 Ala. 111, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 81 (Ala. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, J.

The appellant Avas convicted of the offense of grand lerceny. In addition to the fact that the charges requested by the defendant were asked all [112]*112together, and not separately (Verberg v. State, 137 Ala. 73, 34 South. 848, 97 Am. St. Rep. 17; Johnson v. State, 141 Ala. 37, 37 South. 456), so that, if any one of them was properly refused, the court could not he put in error, they all seem to be based on the idea that the suit of clothes was left in the possession of the defendant, and that he could not be convicted of larceny. The evidence does not bear out this theory, for it shows that the owner of the clothes did not commit them into the custody of the defendant, but merely obtained permission from him to use one of the drawers in defendant’s buréau, into which he placed them, thus keeping them under his own supervision and still in his possession. There was no error in the refusal to give the charges requested.

The judgment of the court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, J.

The appellant Avas convicted of the offense of grand lerceny. In addition to the fact that the charges requested by the defendant were asked all [112]*112together, and not separately (Verberg v. State, 137 Ala. 73, 34 South. 848, 97 Am. St. Rep. 17; Johnson v. State, 141 Ala. 37, 37 South. 456), so that, if any one of them was properly refused, the court could not he put in error, they all seem to be based on the idea that the suit of clothes was left in the possession of the defendant, and that he could not be convicted of larceny. The evidence does not bear out this theory, for it shows that the owner of the clothes did not commit them into the custody of the defendant, but merely obtained permission from him to use one of the drawers in defendant’s buréau, into which he placed them, thus keeping them under his own supervision and still in his possession. There was no error in the refusal to give the charges requested.

The judgment of the court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 So. 192, 156 Ala. 111, 1908 Ala. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-ala-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack