Allen v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. H. Chamberlain. The indictment in this ease was found on the 14th June, 1866, and charged that the prisoner, William Allen, a freedman, “ broke and entered the office of Samuel Lyons, with intent to steal, in which office there was kept, at the time of said breaking and entry, goods, merchandize, or other valuable thing, for use, sale, or deposit.”
Read the full summary
From the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. H. Chamberlain. The indictment in this ease was found on the 14th June, 1866, and charged that the prisoner, William Allen, a freedman, “ broke and entered the office of Samuel Lyons, with intent to steal, in which office there was kept, at the time of said breaking and entry, goods, merchandize, or other valuable thing, for use, sale, or deposit.” No objection to the indictment was interposed, and the only plea was, not guilty. “On the trial” as the bill of exceptions states, “the following facts, among others, were testified to by the…
1Opinion of the CourtByrd, J.
It is unnecessary to notice all the questions discussed in the voluminous brief of the counsel. We are satisfied the prisoner is not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment, upon the evidence set out in the bill of exceptions. It is difficult to conceive how a person can be guilty of burglary, who enters a house with a key voluntarily furnished him by the owner to enter, knowing at the time that the person wishes to enter to steal. It is in effect a consent to the entry by such person, and is not even a trespass.
The witness Watkins was the servant and agent of the owner of the house…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Sorrells v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Parsons v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- Connor v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1893
- Love v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Lindsay v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1960
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.