Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Williams v. State

45 Ala. 55

DecidedJanuary 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Ala. 55 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 45 Ala. 55 (Ala. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

B. E. SAEFOLD, J.

The appellant was indicted for failing to perform his duty as an apportioner of roads. The only evidence against him on the trial was that he had not made any report to the grand jury. Upon this evidence, under the charge of the court, he was convicted.

Section 1838 of the Eevised Code prescribes the duties of apportioners. The 5th subdivision requires them “ to appoint one of their number to attend court, and report to the grand jury any overseer who has in any particular failed to discharge his duty, upon any road or portion of road within his precinct.” It was for alleged violation of this duty, in not making a report, that he was indicted; There is no evidence that he was appointed to make a report, or that any overseer in his precinct had failed to discharge his duty. Proof of both of these facts was necessary to a conviction.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

B. E. SAEFOLD, J.

The appellant was indicted for failing to perform his duty as an apportioner of roads. The only evidence against him on the trial was that he had not made any report to the grand jury. Upon this evidence, under the charge of the court, he was convicted.

Section 1838 of the Eevised Code prescribes the duties of apportioners. The 5th subdivision requires them “ to appoint one of their number to attend court, and report to the grand jury any overseer who has in any particular failed to discharge his duty, upon any road or portion of road within his precinct.” It was for alleged violation of this duty, in not making a report, that he was indicted; There is no evidence that he was appointed to make a report, or that any overseer in his precinct had failed to discharge his duty. Proof of both of these facts was necessary to a conviction.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Ala. 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-ala-1871.