Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.

Tried before Sou. John. P. Hubbabd.

Tbe appellant, Joe Buford, was jointly indicted with Dock Legrand and two others for assault with intent to muirder one Knowles. The appellant moved for asev-erante, which was granted. Upon his trial Knowles testified that shortly after he had had a fuss with the wife of Legrand, Legrand, in company with the defendant and two- others, came to the place where Knowles was, and that the assault ivas there committed by Legrand with a pistol, and that witness “saw something' in Joe Buford’s hand that he took to be a pistol or some other weapon,” but that he would not swear positively that defendant had a weapon of any kind; that defendant got behind a tree as soon as the shooting began and remained there until it iras over and then went off with Le-grand; that defendant did not shoot himself or take any part in the conversation between the witness and Legrand.

The evidence for the defendant tended to show that there was no- agreement, understanding or conspiracy between him ancl Legrand for shooting said Knowles, and that the defendant did not have a weapon of any kind.

The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the refusal of each, viz.: (1.) “If the jury believe the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt, you will find the defendant not guilty.” (2.) “The court charges the jury that before you can convict the defendant you must believe from the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that the defendant, Joe Buford, had conspired with the defendant, Dock Legrand, to commit the assault, and that he went with Dock Legrand to the -scene of the trouble for the purpose of aiding, encouraging and abetting him in the commission of the assault, and that he was there ready and willing to aid, encourage and abet said Dock Le-grand in the commission of the assault at the time the assault was committed.”

Tbe defendant was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. From this judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

cited Elmore v. State, 110-Ala. 67; Tally’s ease, 102 Ala. 25, 67;- Jolly’s case, 94 Ala. 23. ■

cited Amos v-. State, 83 Ala. 1; Raiforcl v. State, 59 Ala. 106; Martin x>. State, 89 Ala. 15; Tanner v: State-, 92 Ala. 1; State v. Tally, 102 Ala. 63; Liner v: State,' 124 Ala. 1; Browder v. State,-102 Ala. 164. - '

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress