Legal Opinion

Nelson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1871PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. James Q. Smith. The facts are stated in the opinion. — 1. The sentence of the 9th June was without authority of law. 1st. Because the sentence'of the court (81st May,) had been 'complied with; 2d. The defendant could not be held in custody for failure to pay the costs, and 3d, the 9th June sentence is too uncertain.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before Hon. James Q. Smith. The facts are stated in the opinion. — 1. The sentence of the 9th June was without authority of law. 1st. Because the sentence'of the court (81st May,) had been 'complied with; 2d. The defendant could not be held in custody for failure to pay the costs, and 3d, the 9th June sentence is too uncertain. The State’s constitution, art. 1, § 22, says : “There shall be no imprisonment for debt except in case of fraud.” The supreme court of Indiana uses this language — “ The costs in a criminal case are matters of private right,…

1Opinion of the CourtPetees, J.

This is a criminal prosecution by indictment upon a charge of assault with intent to murder, commenced in the circuit court of Dallas county. The trial took place on the 31st day of May, 1871, when the defendant being arraigned pleaded guilty of an assault and battery with a pistol. And the judgment recites — “ It is therefore considered by the court that the defendant be fined the sum of twenty-five dollars.” It does not' appear that there was any jury inpanneled in the case to “ fix and *188determine the amount of the fine,” but that the same was fixed by the court, without the intervention of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Borman v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. McDowell v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
  2. Bowen v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
  3. Mitchell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  4. Spicer v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  5. Ex parte Joice & SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API