RICE, Judge.
¶1
We see nothing in the provisions, etc., of Code 1923, § 3216, that prevents the eori
*355
tinued and effectual operation of the provisions of Code 1923, § 3212.
¶2
This appellant was prosecuted under the provisions of the statute last named; the indictment against him was in the form prescribed by the Code. The demurrers thereto were properly overruled. Code 1923, §§ 3212, 4556 (form 71), 4527.
¶3
No bill of exceptions is contained in the record. No other question is apparent.
¶4
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
¶5
Affirmed.
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Lauderdale County; Orlan B. Hill, Judge.
Will Phillips was convicted of cruelty to an animal, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
The indictment is as follows: The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Will Phillips unlawfully, wantonly, or maliciously killed, disabled, disfigured or injured a dog, the property of Lando P. Ritter, contrary to law against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.
Defendant's demurrer to the indictment was upon the following grounds:
1. Said indictment charges no offense known to the law.
2. Because the indictment charges in the alternative that the defendant killed a dog, the property of Lando P. Ritter and each alternative averment charges no offense known to the law.
3. The indictment charges in the alternative that the defendant unlawfully, wantonly or maliciously killed a dog, the property of Lando P. Ritter, and each alternative averment fails to charge an offense known to the law.
4. The indictment charges in the alternative that the defendant unlawfully, wantonly or maliciously killed a dog, the property of Lando P. Ritter, and by the Statute, Section 3216 of the Code of Alabama, 1923, it is not a violation of the law to wantonly kill a dog.
This demurrer was overruled.
From the judgment entry it appears that the state elected to prosecute under section 3212 of the Code, after which the defendant refiled the original demurrer with these additional grounds:
5. Because the indictment fails to allege fully the injury to the dog.
6. Because said indictment fails to allege that the defendant unlawfully or maliciously killed or disabled defendant's dog or injured any dog the property of another without good excuse.
The court overruled these additional grounds of demurrer to the indictment. Source: CourtListener
