Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 Ala. 89

Adams v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1880

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1880-12-15

<p>]. Idem, sonansj names Mineher, and, .Minchen, not. — The names, Mineher and Minshen, are not idem sonans ; and a plea in abatement, to an indictment charging Wm. Mineher with an offense, is properly sustained on proof that the defendant’s name is Minchen. •</p> <p>2. Variance between allegation and proof. — Where the defendant was indicted for an affray with Win. Mineher, and the court permitted evidence tobe introduced, showing that defendant and Wm. Minshen fought together in a public place, there was a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof, the admission of such evidence was error, and it should have been excluded on motion.</p>

Relies on Lawrence v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1960

5 state decisions

20188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

SOMEEYILLE, J.

¶1— The indictment in this case charges *90the appellant, Adams, and one William Mincher, his co-defendant, with an affray, for fighting together in a public place. Mincher filed a plea in abatement alleging a misnomer, and averring his name to be William Minshen, and that he was known and called by that name. The court sustained this plea and quashed the indictment as to him ; Adams, however, was put to trial upon the plea of not guilty.

¶2Under this iudictment evidence was allowed to be introduced, against appellant’s objection, showing that he and one William Minshen fought together in a public place in the county of Cherokee within twelve months before tbe finding of the indictment.

¶3We think this was error, for tbe reason that tbe names Mincher and Minshen are not idem sonans, and there was a clear variance between tbe name proved and that alleged in the indictment, which is fatal. Iu contemplation of law they were two different and distinct persons. The plea of misnomer was properly sustained, and the evidence objected to should have been excluded.. — Whart. Cr. Ev. (8th Ed.) §§ 94, 6; Lawrence v. State, 59 Ala. 61; 1 Brickell’s Digest, p. 6, §§ 84-89.

¶4Reversed and remanded.

/67/ala/89 · .json · Public domain