Chisholm v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. Tried before Hon. Eobert Dougherty. The appellant was tried at the spring term, 1865, and having pleaded guilty to the indictment, the jury assessed a fine of $1,250, together with the costs, and a judgment nunc pro tunc was entered upon this verdict at the spring term, 1866. At the fall term, 1866, the defendant made a motion to vacate said judgment, and in support of this motion produced a pardon from the Governor of Alabama…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa. Tried before Hon. Eobert Dougherty. The appellant was tried at the spring term, 1865, and having pleaded guilty to the indictment, the jury assessed a fine of $1,250, together with the costs, and a judgment nunc pro tunc was entered upon this verdict at the spring term, 1866. At the fall term, 1866, the defendant made a motion to vacate said judgment, and in support of this motion produced a pardon from the Governor of Alabama remitting the fine. The court refused to vacate the judgment and overruled the motion, and the defendant appealed.
1Per curiam
The constitution confers upon the Governor the power to grant reprieves and pardons, and to remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, under such rules and regulations as may be provided by law. — Article 5, § 13.
After the rendition of the judgment in the present ease, the Governor, under the great seal of the State, there being no restriction upon his power so to do, by any rule or regulation of law, remitted the entire fine, which destroyed the vitality of the judgment, except as to the costs. The court, therefore, on the motion of appellant, should have vacated the judgment as to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dane v. LoomisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Soale v. State ex rel. KightIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
- Mary Louise Richardson Dozier v. Cherlene VickersCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013