Toole v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
From the City Court of Anniston. Tried before the Hon. B. F. Cassady. The indictment in each of these two cases was returned into court on the 18th October, 1889; was signed by “J. II, King, solicitor o£ the City Court o£ Anniston,” and was in the following words: “The State of Alabama, Calhoun County; City Court of Anniston, October Term, 1889. The grand jury of said county charge, that Harry Toole, before the finding of this indictment, sold spirituous, vinous, or malt…
Read the full summary
From the City Court of Anniston. Tried before the Hon. B. F. Cassady. The indictment in each of these two cases was returned into court on the 18th October, 1889; was signed by “J. II, King, solicitor o£ the City Court o£ Anniston,” and was in the following words: “The State of Alabama, Calhoun County; City Court of Anniston, October Term, 1889. The grand jury of said county charge, that Harry Toole, before the finding of this indictment, sold spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, without a license, and contrary to law; against the peace,” cited 1 Bishop’s Grim. Pro., § 99, Ed. 1866; 1…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, J.
These cases involve the same questions, and were submitted together. The demurrers to the indictments were, in our opinion, properly overruled. The record in each case sufficiently shows that the grand jury which preferred the indictments was the grand jury of the City Court of Anniston. It appears that this jury was ordered to be summoned by said court; that the original venire facias was issued out of said court, executed by the sheriff j and returned into said court; that the jury was “according to law” sworn, impanelled, and charged by said court; and that the indictments were returned…
2Cited by4 opinions
- City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- Gater v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- Whaley v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915
- Ashley v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912