Maddox v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. A. D. Sayre. The' appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment which charged that “without legal cause or good excuse, he entered upon the premises of W. C. Frizzle, after having been warned within the six months preceding not to do so.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Montgomery. Tried before the Hon. A. D. Sayre. The' appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment which charged that “without legal cause or good excuse, he entered upon the premises of W. C. Frizzle, after having been warned within the six months preceding not to do so.” W. C. Frizzle, witness for tlie State, testified that he had possession under lease from other parties, and had had for a number of years, of tAVO plantations, one knoAvn as the Beed place, and the other as the Finley place; that on Feby. 2,1898, certain portions of the Beed place, not…
1Opinion of the CourtDowdell, J.
— While the offense of trespass after warning under the statute is an offense against the possession, the possession contemplated is something more than a mere occupancy. It is such an interest in the property as carries with it a right to exclusive possession for the time being. The possession of the servant is the possession of the master, and any offense committed against such possession, is against the master’s possession. The undisputed evidence in this case Avas that Lizzie Stewart Avas the hired servant of W. O. Frizzle, and the house occupied by her Avas furnished to her by said…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Taylor v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1901
- Arrington v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
- Havard v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929