Windham v. City of Andalusia

Supreme Court of Alabama

Windham v. City of Andalusia

118 So. 739, 218 Ala. 428, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 319

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 10, 1928

Docket4 Div. 386.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 118 So. 739 (Windham v. City of Andalusia) 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

Windham v. City of Andalusia, 118 So. 739, 218 Ala. 428, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 319 (Ala. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that this case should be affirmed. But there is one statement of law, unnecessary to the decision of the case, to which we_ think we" should refer. The statement in the opinion is as follows:

“But, if the case is tried by a jury, as here, the statute makes it the duty of the jury to not only assess the fine, but to impose such hard labor sentence as they may determine, provided such fine and hard labor sentence are within the limits authorized by law or ordinance for such offense.”

The court was construing section 1937, copied in the opinion. This court has given a different interpretation to said Code provision in the case of Thomas v. Mobile, 203 Ala. 96, 82 So. 110. There this court held that on such appeal, tried by the circuit court with a jury, it is.the province of the court to determine and fix hard labor, if any shall be imposed. The act of the jury in that regard is surplusage, and not controlling on the judge. But his sentence to hard labor will be attributed to his own judgment, and as uninfluenced by the verdict of the jury. Such wast the holding- by this court in Ex parte Morrissette, 200 Ala. 488, 76 So. 430:

*429 While we do not concur in that part of the opinion of the Court of Appeals herein quoted, we do concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.

Application for rehearing is denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JX, concur.

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

FOSTER, J.

We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that this case should be affirmed. But there is one statement of law, unnecessary to the decision of the case, to which we_ think we" should refer. The statement in the opinion is as follows:

“But, if the case is tried by a jury, as here, the statute makes it the duty of the jury to not only assess the fine, but to impose such hard labor sentence as they may determine, provided such fine and hard labor sentence are within the limits authorized by law or ordinance for such offense.”

The court was construing section 1937, copied in the opinion. This court has given a different interpretation to said Code provision in the case of Thomas v. Mobile, 203 Ala. 96, 82 So. 110. There this court held that on such appeal, tried by the circuit court with a jury, it is.the province of the court to determine and fix hard labor, if any shall be imposed. The act of the jury in that regard is surplusage, and not controlling on the judge. But his sentence to hard labor will be attributed to his own judgment, and as uninfluenced by the verdict of the jury. Such wast the holding- by this court in Ex parte Morrissette, 200 Ala. 488, 76 So. 430:

*429 While we do not concur in that part of the opinion of the Court of Appeals herein quoted, we do concur in the affirmance of the judgment of the trial court.

Application for rehearing is denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JX, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 So. 739, 218 Ala. 428, 1928 Ala. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windham-v-city-of-andalusia-ala-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack