Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Ala. 134

Graves v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1879

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1879-12-15

Tried before the Hon. John A. Minnis. The indictment in this case charged that the defendant, Levi Graves, with .others, “ broke into and entered a railroad ear, upon or connected with the Western Railroad of Alabama, in which car goods, merchandise, or meat, of the value of fifty dollars, was kept for use, deposit, or transportation, with intent to steal; against the peace,” &o. There was a motion in arrest of judgment, on account of the insufficiency of the indictment, in…

Relies on Horton v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1964

5 state decisions

201879188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

BRICEELL, C. J.

¶1The indictment is founded on the statute (Code of 1876, § 4344) which declares the breaking and entry, with intent to steal, or commit a felony, into any railroad car, upon or connected with any railroad in this State, in which any goods, merchandise, or other valuable thing, is kept for use, deposit, or transportation as freight, is burglary, punishable on conviction by imprisonment in the penitentiary, not less than two, nor more than four years. An indictment, founded on a statute creating a new offense unknown to the common law, is insufficient, unless it clearly alleges every fact which enters into and is an ingredient of the offense. This statute is intended to protect goods kept *135in a railroad car, if they are so kept for use, or on deposit, or for transportation as freight. If not kept for one of these purposes, they are not within the protection of the statute, and the breaking and entry of the car, though with an intent to steal, or to commit a felony, is not within the words of the statute. One of the alternative averments of the indictment is, that the goods were kept in the car for transportation, omitting to aver the transportation was as freight. If not kept for transportation as freight, the goods were not within the protection of the statute. One of the alternative averments fails, consequently, to disclose the statutory offense. — Horton v. The State, 53 Ala. 488.

¶2Another defect in the indictment is, that the ownership of the car is not averred. In all indictments for burglary, it is as essential to aver the ownership of the house, or other place broken and entered, as it is in larceny to aver the ownership of the goods stolen.

¶3The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded. The prisoner will remain in custody, until discharged by due course of law.

Stone, J., dissenting on the second point considered.
/63/ala/134 · .json · Public domain