Moore v. StateMoore v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Somebyille
Thе indictment in this case was found by a grand jury organized under the provisions of an act of the Generаl Assembly, entitled, “ An act to confer jurisdiction upоn the probate judge of Perry county, concurrent with the circuit court, with authority to hold court at Uniontown, Alabama,” approved February 13, 1879. Session Acts 1878-79 pp. 231-34. The defendant, by demurrer to the indictment, assails the legality of the grand jury on the ground of the alleged unconstitutionalitv of this act.
The сonstitutional authority of the legislature to establish such an “ inferior court ” within any county, city or district in thе State, has long been settled by the decisions оf this court, and can now no longer be questioned.—Sanders v. The State, 55 Ala. 42; Nugent v. The State, 18 Ala. 521; Const. 1875, Art. 6, §§ 1, 13; Davis v. The State, ante, 58; Williams v. The State, 61 Ala. 33; Connelly v. The State, 60 Ala. 89.
Nor can it be objected, that the judge of the probate court is authorized by the act in question to preside in such inferior court, in as much as he is a judiсial officer, having been elected by the people under the jurisdiction of the court which is thus established. This point has been twice adjudged by thе past decisions of this court, to which mere rеference without discussion is all that is desirable.—Balkum v. The State, 40 Ala. 671; Randolph v. Baldwin, 41 Ala. 305.
*362The act is рlainly constitutional, and the grand jury, by which the indictment wаs found, was regularly and legally organized under its prоvisions.
It is competent to discredit a witness by attacking his general reputation or character, but particular independent facts can not be introduced in evidence for this purpose.—1 Whart. Law Ev. § 562; Nugent v. The State, 18 Ala. 521. The question, therefore, propounded to the witness Otey, on direct examination, for the purpose of impeaching the witness Ayres, as to the latter’s being indicted for, or chаrged with burglary, and seeking to evade arrest, was properly excluded from the jury by the eourt below. Greater latitude, however, is allowable оn cross-examination.—Ingram v. The State, 67 Ala. 67.
The charge requested by the defendant and rеfused by the court, was not a proper exposition of the law, and was rightly refused. When the chаracter of a witness is assailed, or he is othеrwise impeached as being unworthy of credit, it is entirely within the province of the jury, as the exclusive judges of the facts, to say what degree of weight or credibility shall be given to his testimony. It does not lie in the mouth of any court to instruct the jury, as matter оf law, that they can not convict on such testimоny, unless it is corroborated. It is to be assumed, that thеy will, in forming their verdict, accord to all evidence only such weight as a sense of justice and a conscientious regard for their sworn duty shall authorize.—Grimes v. The State, 63 Ala. 166; Addison v. The State, 48 Ala. 478.
The judgment of Circuit Court is affirmed.