Davis v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Autauga. Tried before the Hon. John D. Phelan. 1. The charge of the court below as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen, was erroneous. The facts show that the buggy did not belong to Hinton. The written evidence of the settlement should have been produced. 2. The written evidence of Connolly should have been produced, or its absence satisfactorily accounted for.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Autauga. Tried before the Hon. John D. Phelan. 1. The charge of the court below as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen, was erroneous. The facts show that the buggy did not belong to Hinton. The written evidence of the settlement should have been produced. 2. The written evidence of Connolly should have been produced, or its absence satisfactorily accounted for. The statute directs the committing magistrate to reduce such testimony into writing and to certify the same to the proper court. — Digest, 449-50, §§25,27, 33. The law presumes…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, J.
The plaintiff in error was convicted of stealing a buggy, which was stated in the indictment to be the goods and chattels of one William Hinton. Mr. Hinton on the trial testified that the buggy was taken from the possession of himself and his wife. He stated that previously it had been sold as his property at public sale and purchased by Mr. Cottrell — that his wife’s mother refunded to Mr. Cottrell the purchase money, and the buggy by written conveyance was settled upon the wife of the witness. The conveyance was not produced, but the court charged the jury that notwithstanding its absence…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Handley v. ShafferSupreme Court of Alabama · 1912
- Pool v. DeversSupreme Court of Alabama · 1857
- Mauldin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- Harrell v. WhitmanSupreme Court of Alabama · 1851
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.