Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

134 Ala. 195

Dunklin v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1901

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1901-11-15

Tried before tbe Hon. J. O. Biohardson. The appellant in this case applied to tbe Supreme Court for a writ of error. In compliance with the prayer of tbe petition, the writ of error was awarded.

Relies on Hornsby v. State · Francois v. State · State v. Garner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1901-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1986

10 state decisions

60190119101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

TYSON, J.

¶1Section 4327 of Criminal Code confers authority upon any one of the judges of this court in vacation, or upon this court in term time, to issue a writ of error, in a criminal cause, to 'the clerk of the count in •which the judgment of conviction was rendered, confining, however, the granting of such writ on some error .of law apparent on the transcript of the record. This is the procedure adopted in this case. In the transcript of the record before us, it appears that the defendant was indicted for a, violation of section 5091 of the Criminal Code. The indictment contains no averment of the value of the injury to the animal, killed, disabled, disfigured, destroyed or injured. In view of the fact that the fine shall not be less than twice the value of the injury done ¡the animal and that one-half of it shall go to the owner of the property destroyed or injured, this averment was necessary.- — Garner v. The State, 8 Port. 447; Caldwell v. The State, 49 Ala. 34; Bishop on Stat. Crimes, § § 444, 445; 1 Bish. on Crim. Pro. § § 540, 567; 2 Ib. §§ 48, 177. The indictment being fatally defective in the omission of averment pointed out, will not support a judgment of conviction.- — Francis v. The State, 20 Ala. 83, 86; Hornsby v. The State, 94 Ala. 63. We must, however, decline to quash it, but! will reverse the judgment of conviction and remand tine cause, with direction to the trial court to quash, as that court has the authority to order another indictment to be preferred, if it sees proper to- do so. — Code, § 4922.

¶2Reversed and remanded.

/134/ala/195 · .json · Public domain