*1 Fraser stated As was has 289: “It Ala. ais [quo it fully warranto] settled governed proceeding; civil appli practice rules-of principles to criminal cases.” cable therefore, was not judge, The trial re- permit he refused error case to argue spondent’s counsel argue; nothing to There was jury. ques- undisputed. It was a was evidence court. for the -of law judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed. So. 779 v. STATE. COLLINS Div. 391. 21, 1938.
Rehearing Stricken Dawson, Payne, ap- Scott & Fort
pellant. Carmichael, Atty. Small,- Atty. M. Clarencé Asst. BRICKEN, Presiding Judge. prosecution in this case com- was menced and trial had an affidavit sworn to one E.W. Hurt, Court. The offense approved by violation an act *2 £()1 offense; 1937, by 2, apply and but this rule March not Governor on does the its upon prescribe the effective said Statute fails provisions to definite- became ness e., into effect the i. act went constituent elements of the of- approval, the 1937, fense, 2, terms, March and this the on for would violate consti- its under provides dogs for right inoculation of tutional of the “to demand the accused General and nature rabies. and cause of prevention against of the accusation the 1936-1937, him.” Acts, Session Local Extra as complaint reads fol- page The 230. complaint in this case cover- The : lows period of months an- ed a time twelve “Complaint date, larger portion a terior to its of said County Alabama, DeKalb “The State of complained time when the acts of -were this, no As offense under the law. to County Court “DeKalb new, question being the act plaint the com- hj Haralson, Judge me, of “Before W. J. have that the of- should County, said Court of the personally complained fense of was committed the who, Hurt W. E. appeared subsequent 2, to accused or since March says sworn, deposes -that duly and being n believing, and (grounds 11) 1937. The demurrer 10 and cause for probable he has point, raise this and court erred in the months believe, within twelve does holding not well the demurrer was taken. affidavit, in said making this before question This hands, needs no elaboration our at Collins, being the owner County, Julian following being the authorities in dog which of a possession in the of or proposition: point Jinright on this the Act under vaccinated been has not State, 277; 456, 1937, refuse 2nd, fail or did March of to cases cited. by the State dog vaccinated said have affidavit, supra, did The or having warned to been Inspector, after language the of the attempt follow charge of en- not to having by the officer so do forcing Statute, any designation of peace was there Act, nor against the this name, by some or the misdemeanor of Alabama. State dignity of the parlance phrase, which in common other E. Hurt “W. or No sufficient statement designates it. me, subscribed “Sworn to ingredients the essential of of averment the 1937. day July, 20th this appears offense therein. alleged Sev- Haralson, “W. J. were directed of demurrer grounds eral County Court. “Judge DeKalb and should been to these defects have day July, 20th this “Filed sustained. McPherson, Clerk.” G. “L. designated, judg- For’ the errors upon sepa- numerous based Demurrers lower from which this ment court interpos- grounds were distinct appeal rate and is’ taken and the cause reversed upon complaint, and considera- to the ed remamded. were overruled. As by the court Reversed and remanded. stated, be hereinafter will will this decision upon the action of be rested court Rehearing. On demurrers, overruling said and will be in opinion' original reversing and re- appeal. this conclusive manding rendered, case this and the attempted The offense to be opinion 21, down handed misdemeanor, charged is and the a Stat affirmatively appears It from the 3815, provides (Section 1923) Code ute application rehearing by designation by a name nf such that offense an thereto, and the certificate that the man may be sufficient which to datory. provisions of Rule 38 have prosecution by complaint base a or af complied with which necessitates an if designating fidavit. But instead of so striking application order here for re charged' the offense the party undertakes hearing State, ante, p. aforesaid. Crow v. to or set out facts constituents of the 897, (on rehearing). So. offense, it must be done with sufficient accuracy definiteness and mere mailing to enable opposing as coun copy application see that an of the charg offense is sel a ing days rehear Further, prosecution, support ed. it is a criminal and brief within fifteen generally sufficient to follow the words thereof will not suffice. Service declaring thereof, creating of the Statute or Rule must be had with- pnder In days. See re fifteen in the allotted General, Attorney 185 Ala. ex rel. State rel. parte ex Ex State 788; Tay Breitling, 221 Ala. *3 al., Ala.App. et v. lor Lunsford Lodge, of North K. P. Grand Walker, America v. Application stricken. Carmichael, Atty. Wm. III, Asst. Garrett, H. Loeb and C. Silas Attys.
STATE
POWE.
appellee.
SAMFORD, Judge. by the An indictment was returned Jury Spring Grand of Mobile at its
Term, charging the defendant perjury. the crime