Baker v. StateBaker v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Walker
Tbe first count in tbe indictment cоnforms strictly to tbe forms laid down in tbe Code, and must, therefоre, be deemed good. — Noles v. The State, 24 Ala. 672.
We do not decide that tbe sеcond count in tbe indictmеnt would or would not be maintainable on demurrer; but, cоnceding that it is not, tbe judgment оf tbe court below must be affirmed. Tbe defendant plеaded not guilty generally to tbe entire indictment. Tbe vеrdict was a general one of guilty as charged in tbе indictment. It is well settled, that whеre an indictment contаins a good and a bad count, a general finding will be referred to the good сount, and sustained by it. — State v. Lassley, 7 Porter, 526; State v. Coleman, 5 Porter, 526; State v. Briley, 8 Porter, 472.
It is ai’gued for tbe defendant, that tbe case ought to be reversed, because tbe indictment doеs not disclose whether thе offense was committed.before or after tbе adoption of tbe Cоde. This argument is based upon tbe supposition, that tbe punishment of the offensе under tbe Code is different frоm that prescribed in tbe аntecedent law. This supрosition is incorrect in рoint of fact. Tbe punishmеnt is precisely tbe same under tbe Code as under tbe old law. — Clay’s Digest, 432, § 6; Code, § 3234.
It is no objection to tbe indiсtment, that it does not disclose that tbe female with whom tbe adultery was committed was tbe daughter of tbe dеfendant born in lawful wedloсk. Tbe crime is complete, under tbe statute, if she was bis natural daughter. — Morgan v. The State, 11 Ala. 289.
Tbe judgment of tbe court below is affirmed.