Williamson v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Criminal Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. John E. Jones, Judge. The facts of this case appear fully in the opinion of the Court. 1. The indictment was defective, and the demurrer to it should have been sustained. The statute contemplates that there must be an informer, and that his name must appear as such in connection with the indictment. The language of the statute excludes the idea of an indictment to be found in the ordinary way.
Read the full summary
Error to the Criminal Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. John E. Jones, Judge. The facts of this case appear fully in the opinion of the Court. 1. The indictment was defective, and the demurrer to it should have been sustained. The statute contemplates that there must be an informer, and that his name must appear as such in connection with the indictment. The language of the statute excludes the idea of an indictment to be found in the ordinary way. So does it exclude a proceeding by information in the technical sense of the term. See pamph. Acts, 1848, p. 32, § 98. An indictment may be…
1Opinion of the CourtChilton, J.
The indictment charges the defendant with keeping an establishment in the county of Mobile, on the first day of June 1848, for the sale of confectionary, cakes, candies and fruits, without first procuring a license so to do according to law. The defendant was found guilty, and the court entered judgment that he be fined thirty dollars, that being three times the amount of the price of license required to be paid by persons engaged in that business.
Upon the trial, the defendant demurred to the indictment, because it did not disclose that there was an informer, insisting that as the statute…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Strouse v. LeipfSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Molett v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Dixon v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1959
- Dixon v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1959