Thompson v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison. Tried before Hon. W. J. Harealson. The facts are set forth in the opinion. 1. The indictment alleges that J. H. Dargin is the owner of the goods; the proof is that the owner’s name is John H. Dargin.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison. Tried before Hon. W. J. Harealson. The facts are set forth in the opinion. 1. The indictment alleges that J. H. Dargin is the owner of the goods; the proof is that the owner’s name is John H. Dargin. A mistaken Christian name was anciently more fatal than a mistaken surname. — Bacon’s Abgt., Title, Misnomer, 2 Haw-kin’s P. C. 317; 2 Hale’s P. C. 175-6; but “ modern decisions make no distinction.” — Lynes v. State, 5 Por. 236. 2. Any substantial variance between the name of the owner as given in the indictment, and as proved on the trial, wiH be fatal.…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, C. J.
The defendant was indicted for stealing certain personal goods, charged to be the property of J. *167H. Dargin, who was marked on the indictment as the prosecutor. ' ,
On the trial, said Dargin was examined by the State, and deposed that he was the owner of the property described in the indictment; that his name was John H. Dargin; that he was frequently called J. H. Dargin, and signed his name J. H. Dargin.
This, the bill of exceptions states, was all the evidence on this point.
The court charged the jury, that if they believed that the prosecutor* J. H. Dargin and John, H. Dargin, was the same…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Lacey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915
- Morningstar v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Parks v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1925
- Crittenden v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901
- Roden v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.