Willingham v. State

Decided June 15, 1848

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1848-06-15

Before the Hon. G. W. Stone. The plaintiff was indicted as the overseer of a road, and there being a variance, as to the allegations, and the proof, in the description of the road, and the defendant refusing to permit an amendment to be made, the court permitted the solicitor to enter a nol. pros., with leave to, prefer a new indictment, binding the defendant over to answer the new bill. This is now assigned as error. 1.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1958

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1848-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CHILTON, J.

¶1The writ of error in this case must be dismissed. There is no judgment against the defendant, from which a writ of error will lie; the error complained of is, that the court permitted the State’s solicitor to enter a nolle prosequi, so as to prefer a new indictment, corresponding with the facts constituting the alledged offence. The judgment of the court discharges the defendant from the former indictment, and if he was'improperly detained in custody .after the nolle prosequi was entered, this is not his remedy.

¶2Writ off error dismissed.