Savage v. StateSavage v. State
wise
therein,
and that
that the defendant was
mitting evidencé, over his
fendant
joined
out
terposing
Christian
Christian
viction.
is
by
called “A.
was
“A.
“Dr.
necessity
counsel
in an indictment
finding
30,
but
become effective
it will
for the error
thorities); but,
offense,
which was vаlid
an indictment
effect until 60
elects
cute
divided into
and if
1. Statutes
(Court Appeals
cluded offense
count.
thereafter.
greater offense.
passage
The
Reversed
Other
greater
abatement,
correct,
Criminal law
Indictment
South.
A
Acts
Where a verdict
which contained
replying
O.
will
proven
Lindsey,”
the same criminal
SAVAGE v. STATE.
which
known.
Rehearing
that it
issue on the
Lindsey.”
and such
and the cause remanded.
complains
pleading
1919, p. 1086, adopted
his
referrеd
covered
held not to
offense,
name is not
name was
O.
&wkey;>255 containing
made
and remanded.
said
two or
discuss
Christian
thereto in
court of
setting up
state of
indictment and since
days thereafter,
pointed
Lindsey,” that he
contаining
The
and that
bad counts referred
<&wkey;l93/2
as the case
demurrer,
alleging possession
and one
Denied Nov.
count will
letters are his
through
to the count which
information
it cannot afterwards
was
of Alabama. June
We
period
—Act
subsequent prosecution
dispute.
these
become
the lower court
take effect
(without
“Allen,”
name Allen.
out,
competent
think
the court erred
commonly known and
argued
that the defendant’s
any manner,
invalid,
“A. O.” as shоwn
act under color
objection, showing
questions.
indictable
—Prosecution
pleadings
must be reversed
of a
effective from
signed
'
still was
split
&wkey;>203
duly
so that a count
issue tendered
counts,
citation of
September
filed
that it should
initiаls
municipality
until 60
still a
did not take
or not his
fact which murrer,
appears
was
up
included
constituted
contention
before the
September
SAVAGE
portion
his check
no
was valid
brief
based on
21, 1921.
to valid
offenses,
general,
or sub-
—Vеrdict
one of
for in
a con-
prose-
in ad
called
With-
is re-
provi-
(18
only;
plea
au-
de
in-
an
no
Ala.App.)
4. Criminal
of another name.
conviction were
5. Criminal law
for the court
tion must be construed most
attacked
could
defendant,
uor,
of
session
a
peals.
porter.
the
facture of
uors and
possession,
second
since the
appellant.
St.
Ala.
alias
State.
County; A. E.
viction
pleader.
ed for
of former
have been
charge
prosecution for
*1
STATE
James,
Hamilton,
Brief of' counsel did not
SAMPORD,
Harwell G.
Criminal law
The
Though
A
pleader.
304,'5
before the
101, 29
have refused to
Jim
possessing
having manufactured
grand jury
on which that
charge
Reversed
by special demurrer,
30th
Ala.
111
that fact does
construed most
Savage
accused of
alias Jim
law
prosecution.
South.
convicted
conviction,
act of
in former
Page
the same
136 Ala."
still, apparatus, appliance,
formerly
day
App. 106,
J.
&wkey;>292(l)
<&wkey;293
greater
<&wkey;i200(4)
Davis, Atty. Gen.,
finding
Gamble, Judge.
the first
South.
liquor
and remanded.
of said
and the second
manufacturing.
did
There were two
was
Rehearing.'
based,
general
consider them
conviction
attacked.
Oaffey,
September,
possess
generally,
Savage,
plea
though
offense or
of this indictment and
convicted
while
—Conviction
jeopardy
charging
of—Plea
states
Court, Escambia
—Former
make it erroneous
of former
should
strongly against
intoxicating liq-
making
reach the
or have in his
Ala. 303.
defects should
Brewton,
that the
on which the
a bar to the
alleging
aon
and he
charged:
of a
foqmer
insufficient.
not revers-
of former
based
conviction
have
the court
counts
general
convic-
it bars
charge
charge
South.
manu-
good.
been
or a
con-
plea
Am.
299
was
liq-
Re-
de-
St.
see
other cases
KEY-NUMBER in all
«SteoFor
Indexes
*2
18 ALABAMA APPELLATE REPORTS
petent
must be
ted error
no other
have been convicted of
liquors,
was tried and
time of
jurisdiction
dictable
its
competent
be reversed
riod
hended
that
manufacturing
ufacturing prohibited liquors,
prohibited liquors
no offense and will not
this
this
the
have in
turing^prohibited
split up
the
or
and
November
session
tured
fore an indictment
Howard
172;
therefor,
fendant with
There
case,
ance,
to his
device or substitute
admits
ing
used for
apparatus, appliance,
will
good,
session was not a
come effective
September 30, 1919 fActs
effectivе
til
But
[2] The verdict
[1] The statute
beverages,
November
purpose manufacturing prohibited.liquors
duly constituted
judgment
afterwards
dignity
in
appeal.
proposition
upon a
making,
unless for
It is the
or
McMullen
liquqr at no other
in one of
being
jurisdiсtion,
the identical
possession a
referred to the
the manufacture of the
v.
possession
or subdivided into two or
offenses
device
reversed.
to be used for the
liquor.
the
30,
State,
charged
of the state of
of
manufаcture,
because the
contrary
which,
says
having
30,' 1919,
that
convicted of
1919,
fixed
McReynolds
or substitute
depends
v.
Bibb v.
conviction rendered
and,
It is
creating
in this
after
violation of
or
phases
a
State,
upon
the offense of
рolicy
therefor,
Code
Handy’s Case, 121 Ala.
says
liquor,
Norman’s
at all
in his
still,
or device
still,
first
reasons the
it
beverages,
if
claimed
elects to
law, against
its
time,
trial court commit-
App.
passage,
a determination of
manufaсturing
State,
case
1907,
Alabama.”
that
etc.,
and will
he is now
the
possession
count, which
apparatus,
times,
state’s demurrer
valid
charged the de
purpose of man
1919,
the law in
to
therefor,
aspects
the offense
cоurt
covering
being general
Case,
crime
it
he
or substitute
law, charges
§
in which he
be
prosecute
and there
charge,
7805. Un
a
it became
it.
argument
possessed
manufac-
manufac
p.
the
used for act
crime
through 120,
cоmpre-
ante, p.
adopted
13 Ala. possession
of
it can
a
at the
1086).
appli
Upon
peace
could
com-
still,
hav
pos
and ceptacle
wit,
any
pe
be
in
he
be
process
Ilarralson,
felony
—and in
parts
sion would be
v.
In other
defendant cannot be
turing
369, quoted
in such
—and section
distinct
tical
charged in the indictment and would there-
tured
turing liquor
92
23,
dient of the other”
that with which he is
that
charge
manufacturing
laid down and sustained
Court
was a
wаs convicted
a former
fore
State
tutes
said:
a
on
cambia
it was held:
Moore v.
v.
v.
105 Ala.
134 Ala.
“The state cannot divide that which consti-
“The defendant
“A
“It is
‘‘The
State,
The defendant
In Gunter’s
In Clem v.
good
trial for
State,
Am. St.
any
State,
basis оf the
under color of
any
offense which is
11 Am. St.
be a
act,
prosecution
of it
v.
but one
it,
in Hurst
aor misdemeanor.”
whisky,
part
whisky,'
state cannot elect to
felonies, growing
defense. Under the
county,
the
receptacle,
Blevins,
defendant could not be
so
117,
words,
and where one is a
8 R.
for a lower
State,
arranged
450,
the basis
distillation,
a
speaking
alleged,
of the same crime.”
settled
higher grade
purpose,
he
632,
and also
C.
this
Case, supra,
prоsecution
and which
prosecution
part
might
if,
110,
App.
L.
may
might
the crime
without
South. 226.
approval by
56 Am. St.
App.
same
possession
Code
its existence and
lawfully punished
rule of this court
while the
in connection with the
42 Ind.
any part
p.
Gunter v.
grade
and make the different
necessarily
103-105,
also be found
charged,
would be
guilty
it was run
in
out
106,
being
long
of the same offense.”
whisky hut,
by authority,
216,
guilty
this
the Indiana court
he
based on whole
having
§
prosecute
manufacture and
charged.
the late Justice
if its
name.
under which he
court,
necessary ingre-
Brown
prosecution
Willis
as it remained
Rep.
State,
now
would
the
prosecutions.”
our
then
guilty
of the crime
of manufac-
being
of manufac-
single
which,
included in
the rule
same iden-
possession
into
Buchanan
in
pleads
manufac-
said:
the
Supreme
guilty
v.
v.
Everage
present
inwas
posses-
posses-
that
State,
State,
crime
that:
that:
Turk
it be
Rep.
637,
205,
him
Es-
try
re-
a
& R.
LIGHT
CO. EULLER
MOBILE
(18 Ala.App.)
Damages <&wkey;142Special
Bishop remarks:
And Mr.
specially claimed.
large
an of-
prosecutor
carve as
special damages,
can,
but he
transaction as
out of
fense
must cut
Law,
claimed
Bishop,
must be
the
counted on
Criminal
once.”
*3
complaint.
§ 1060.
the citizеn
apply
shall
tions,
chief
supra,
offense he was
leges
manufacturing process.
jeopardy
Sommerville,
defendant’s
348,