Tuck v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Writ of error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair. At the spring term for the year 1845, J. C. was tried upon an indictment for grand larceny, found at the spring term 1843, and acquitted. After the acquittal, on motion of the Attorney General, the Court taxed Tuck, who, as the entry asserts, was the prosecutor in the case, with the costs, the prosecution appearing to the Court to be frivolous and malicious.
Read the full summary
Writ of error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair. At the spring term for the year 1845, J. C. was tried upon an indictment for grand larceny, found at the spring term 1843, and acquitted. After the acquittal, on motion of the Attorney General, the Court taxed Tuck, who, as the entry asserts, was the prosecutor in the case, with the costs, the prosecution appearing to the Court to be frivolous and malicious. It is now complained, that in prosecutions for felony, the Circuit Court is not invested with this authority. cited Burns v. The State, 5 Ala. Rep. 227. cited the Acts of 1803, Laws of Ala.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
The only difference between this prosecution and that acted on by this Court in Burns’ case, 5 Ala. Rep. 227, is, that then the Court acted on the motion of the in*665dividual indicted, and the record did not show affirmatively that the prosecution was frivolous or malicious; whilst here the motion is made by the Attorney General, and the record shews that the Court considered the prosecution both frivolous and malicious. The act of 1826 has been called to our attention, but its terms ai'e no more general than the previous statutes contain. The act evidently treats throughout of misdemeanors as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burns v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hays v. CockrellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1867
- City Council v. FosterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Rickley v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1902