Drake v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Erom the County Court of Madison. Tried before the Hon. Widliam Richardson. The indictment in this case was found by a grand jury of tbe Circuit Court, at its Spring term, 1877 ; and tbe case was transferred to tbe County Court, under the provisions of tbe act approved February 9,1877. — Session Acts 1876-7, p. 149. The indictment contained but a single count, which charged that the defendant, “ having been regularly subpoenaed or summoned to appear as a witness before the…
Read the full summary
Erom the County Court of Madison. Tried before the Hon. Widliam Richardson. The indictment in this case was found by a grand jury of tbe Circuit Court, at its Spring term, 1877 ; and tbe case was transferred to tbe County Court, under the provisions of tbe act approved February 9,1877. — Session Acts 1876-7, p. 149. The indictment contained but a single count, which charged that the defendant, “ having been regularly subpoenaed or summoned to appear as a witness before the grand jury, to answer as to any gaming within his knowledge, did fail or refuse to attend and testify in obedience to…
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
The indictment is founded on section 4136 of the Code of 1876, which declares a witness failing or refusing, without a good excuse, to be determined by the court, in obedience to a summons, to appear before the grand jury, and testify as to any gaming within his knowledge, is guilty of a contempt, and also of a misdemeanor. There is no averment in the indictment of the character of the summons issued to the defendant, nor by whom, or what authority it was issued, nor by whom, or when it was served, nor when it was returnable. The offense is of the same character as that of resisting process;…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lang v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
- Pollak v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Life Casualty Co. of Tennessee v. StreetSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Southern Building & Loan Ass'n v. HolmesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933