Bolling v. StateBolling v. State
*1 21 ALABAMA REPORTS APPELLATE 24é аppeal re- Reid, from in day, according the because of defects bond on B. of J. to tile letter appeal. corder for first time on regard Reid to said notified in defendant was testify willingnеss to the facts to and of his County; defendant, Appeal Court, it from Circuit Mobile set seems to said letter. The out ins Goldsby, Judge. us, contained J. W. undei' the statements T. and A. in the Kitchen, of K. T. Mutchler affidavit violating Bоlling Robert was convicted of very through easily, a confer could prohibition laws, appeals. the and he Af- very Reid, in time was ence with who at that firmed. defendant, correspondence have as with the Grove, appel- of the Mobile, the names and addresses certained said Mutchler and Kitchen. show that McMillan & of for The affidavits lant. the witness Kitchen had his office jurisdiction No is shown in the circuit Twenty-First street, Birming at North 214% court, judgment must and the be reversed. ham, Ala.; the that it was to this office that 223, State, App. App. Courson v. 93 So. 18 Ala. King (appellant) defendant S. P. came look Stаte, 904, 538; 95 Ala. Hall So. 19 v. ing for John B. Reid at the of the time al 178; State, 917, App. Ford 100 So. 20 v. Ala. leged conversation between the defendant State, 918, 67; App. App. Ala. Nix v. 100 So. 20 Anderson, plaintiff’s agent. and J. C. Under Perry 858, Stаte, 94; Ala. v. 81 So. 17 appears this statement of facts it to us that 80; State, 837, App. Jacobs 85 Ala. v. So. 17 the defendant diligence not did exercise the reasonable State, 325, App. Haynes 396; v. 59 So. 5 Ala. рlaces upon the law him to discover McMinn, 167; Ry. Exp. Co. v. 99 So. Am. testimony his court did not err in a new and his witnesses. The trial App. 657, Ala. 591. 19 overruling the motion for Bain, 762, Atty. Davis, Gen., Gilbreath v. 101 So. Harwell for the State. trial.. G. 100; State, 557, 212 Ala. Hamilton v. 82 So. Reporter. counsel did not reach the Brief of App. 109; Birmingham 17 Ala. way Light Smith v. Rail Co., 307, & Power 41 So. 147 Ala. Judgment SAMFORD, J. affirmed. 702.1 judg- We discover no reversible error. The Rehearing. On ment of the lower сourt must therefore be appeal was on the record. in this case The affirmed. and, finding filed, no reversible was No brief error Affirmed. record, judgment apparent on the the opinion. applica- On affirmed without was tion rate rehearing appellant files an elabo- for (107 40) So. ju- the‘question brief, raising that no (1 624.) BOLLING STATE. Div. v. and is shown in the circuit court risdiction (Court Appeals 17, of of Alabama. Nоv. 1925. follow. must a reversal therefore Rehearing 2, 1926.) Denied Feb. of the of the clerk a certificate There is that the record to the effect court circuit from true and <&wkey;i260(6)Irregularity ap- 1. Criminal law in — inclusive, 4, pages a both contains 1 to peal may bond be waived when formal ac- transcript and of the record correct cusation made. proceedings on cоurt the had in the circuit jurisdiction Circuit .court’s of offense of vio- liquor the lating The discloses of the case. record trial laws is exercised on formal ac- cusation, irregularity organization and where this an was done the court. Then follows of appeal transferring in case violating bond from recorder charging defendant with affidavit might be waived. prohibition laws, a warrant issued returnablе appeal recorder, <&wkey;l05 and an bond the from before a arraignment 2. Criminal law of —Waiver June, day agreement go original judgment of entered on the 27th and davit to to trial on affi- jurisdiction person. 1924, by held waiver of as to before whom the war- the recorder appeal prosecution violating prohibition made returnable. This bond In rant was for laws, arraignment sureties, by wherе defendant in signed circuit court waived is and and defendant was pleaded guilty,” day June, and “not not chal- “Approved of this 27th marked: lenging which affidavit on case was tried before City 1924, of Mobile.” Un- of thе Recorder specifically go agreeing recorder, but to to trial jurisdiction statute, had recorder the the der thereon, Held, juris- this constituted waiver of try and to and deter- the warrant issue tо person. diction as to appeal being and, upon cause, an the mine <@=>1630(4) agree- 3. Criminal law appeal approve taken, bond to the cir- —Defendant an to original ing to triаl on in hav- affidavit court county. judgment No of Mobile of cuit court original ing jurisdiction ques- could not raise record, per- appears in the and the-recorder jurisdiction appeal. of for time on tion first bond, being haps appeal in its uncertain the prosecution violating prohibition In for judgment description in the recorder’s of the laws, challenge where there was no of affidavit appeal 'taken, is which the and from court by agreement specific go but defendant to to by person being approved holding the the not ju- thereon, original trial and circuit court had city Mobile, in the of of recorder and office charged, risdiction over crime defendant was city payable Mobile, being the of to raising question jurisdiction would precluded from of Digests tgrmFor Key-Numbered and all topic in Indexes other cases see same and KEY-NUMBER Reporter; 1 in Reports. in full Alabama Reported reported in full in the Southern not cuit court the be rel. Ala. ty tiоn of formal accusation defendant charge against person regularities 67 So. case the person, affidavit, for the first time in this court. So. So. court ant So. (Ala. pleaded person, thе crime ed from laws of to trial on the solicitor (107 open with the offense of of years 1. (Court “This [1-3] But This was a waiver of The undoubtedly insufficient violating prohibition EDMONSON v. STATE. Rape <®=>52(l). carnally knowing girl Atty. Gen., opinion Evidence 76, 450, So. 312, 458. to is fixed court App.) of having application 710, may 31) of 14 Ala. and go the ‘not and, day 102 Ala. age. and the defendant judgment 16 Ala. raising but a Appeals of the nature of Mobile chargеd, on to trial 12 Ala. 105 So. in the case state with his be waived. the circuit guilty’ in came by there held to transfer this the in re original affidavit.” has him. Where obtaining specific agreement App. 57; law to be exеrcised the of App. to the 671; day of Alabama. Feb. for to original entry being jurisdiction App. 218. sufficient 912; Alabama, the defendant thereon, McLosky, attorney support county violating question an state waived rehearing 1 court'of 531; of Ex laws, jurisdiction Sanders v. and the cause over 12 and under 16 Affirmed. affidavit Sherrod recites: no the case jurisdiction WEIL Ex Ex in his of Alabama jurisdiction notwithstanding challenge аnd defendant and verdict of this is done and the circuit Booth v. arraignment (8 to which parte parte Rodgers, 98 So. parte Rice, the of In the instant of Mobile coun Div. is charging apprise the BROS. agrеed v. jurisdiction own the offense to is by prohibition overruled. State, State, as to the off the calf” for her. State jurisdic 2, 708, preclud- the cir- 384.) upon defend- of the proper of the of the 1926.) by State (21 guilty to v. SOOTHERN over 210 him and ex ir its 71 15 79 Ala.App.) go in a E. without age the offense of birth, employed prosecutrix, a appellant, upon the occasion of ing who lived with her father him. And that pulled age аcross the road from while she appellant intercourse with her. rejection the occasion mentioned in occurrence, jury. gence appear, appellant erly thе mony aside on the course with on account of dence. The motion for a new trial was the time of er her and the and found difference whether RICE, Harwell G. girl Counsel discuss The state’s evidence was There Knight, Jr., [1] [2, attempt got confined or about to of verdict, of 16 overruled. 3] The case was he was over prosecutrix and There was father was made to warrant 16 on some The two citing J. judgment is no of *2 RY. 00. years.” years, or persuaded “carnally knowing the to the intercourse or and denied ever evidence prosecutrix. and no sufficient to Appellant ground had other only рrosecutrix’s be without merit. authorities. prejudicial Asst. Davis, rulings age carnally fodder, or three but over upon took her ample was is affirmed. the there at the barii of 12 prosecutrix properly Atty. have each been examined of her into Atty. Gen., as to the admission or appellant, questions was convicted and the milking, Appellant newly a certain girls pregnant. know Callie be confined years He stated that evidence to Gen., exceptions error in the the prosecutrix’s to the by having mother and a submitted to the not; showing his age discovered evi or girl and under the the hand аnd for his wife’s appellant its “hollered” whether for mother barn, raised, to It abusing denied the and effect that nor of afternoon, the under had inter- being by does cook made no “holding reserved Dеlony, 12, support of dili record: wheth of the where State. Thos. child- testi- prop upon 245 just and but had the not for be- set in at Rape 2. ®=^I4. So. 38) (107 prosecutrix not Whether or hollered at time WEIL BROS. v. RY. CO. SOUTHERN immaterial, prosecution of intercourse held for carnal in 731.) (6 Div. knowledge girl of over 12 and 1926.) years age. Appeals (Court 2, under 16 of Alabama. of of Feb. Rape <S=»38(I). <&wkey;>l. 3. 1. Public Service Commissions prosecutrix girls Whether father of had public is Public Service a of- Commission pregnant prosecution immaterial, in of ac- public officers, held fice, in and are commissioners carnally knowing prosecutrix. for 9605-9607, cused 1923, view of Code 9610. §§ Appeal Court, from &wkey;o334(l)Certificate, by Circuit Colbert Coun- 2. Evidence secre- — setting ty; tary Almon, Judge. Commission, of Public C. P. Service file, as evi- forth tariffs on is not admissible Louis Edmondson was convicted of an freight 1923, prove (Code dence rate § to a offense, appeals. and he Affirmed. 10017). 7681, 6, 9605, 7719, subd. by secretary Certificate, (cid:127) furnished of Pub- Carmichael, Tuscumbia, ap- E.C. of fоr organized Commission, lic Service under Code pellant. 9605, setting 1923, commission, forth file § tariffs on with’ Reporter. properly Brief did reach of counsel not the as evidence was refused topic Digests in all and Indexes. Kev-Nnmbered
cgz3>Far other cases see same and KEY-NUMBER p. 160. 1 Ante,