Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

120 Ala. 366

Curry v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1898

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1898-11-15

Tried before the Hon. G. K. Miller. The indictment under which the defendant was tried contained two counts. The first count chai’ged the defendant with an assault with intent to murder one Frank Noble. The second count charged the defendant with assault with intent to murder Effie McKibbon.

Relies on Jones v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1938

9 state decisions

3018981900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McOLELLAN, C. J.

¶1The special statute establishing the city court of Talladega, etc., etc., as amended in 1895, provides that petit jurors for said court shall be drawn in the same manner as was or might .thereafter be provided for. the drawing of such jurors for the circuit court of Talladega county.—Acts, 1894-95, p. 1221. The drawing of such jurors of said-circuit court is provided for by the Code. The petit jury which tried this case was drawn in consonance with section 4998 of the Code for a week of the city court, for which no jury had been drawn by the jury commissioners; and the motion to quash the venire because not drawn by the commissioners, etc., etc., was properly overruled.

¶2The fact that there was no evidence of a battery committed by the defendant upon the person of Frank Noble did not appear of record in the court below. It was, therefore, not matter for motion in arrest of judgment,- and that motion was well denied.

¶3It was proper, however, for a motion for a new trial; but, conceding that upon it the city court should have *369granted a new trial, its action in refusing it is not revisable by this court.

¶4There is no merit in the theory advanced in the court below that a battery is not embraced in an indictment charging an assault with intent to murder.Jones v. State, 79 Ala. 23.

¶5Affirmed.

/120/ala/366 · .json · Public domain