Case ID: ala-app_20/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMEORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(104 So. 837)
    PITT v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 265.)
    {Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    April 7, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied May 12, 1925.)
    J. Criminal law <&wkey;l 144(2, 7, 8) — Proceedings, ■ regularity of which is not questioned on appeal, are presumed regular and legal.
    Proceedings, such as an order of continuance, organization of grand jury which found indictment, the venire for grand or petit jury, organization of regular juries for week of term at which case was tried, the regularity of which are not questioned on appeal, will be presumed regular and legal, in view of Code 1923, § 3249.
    .2. Criminal law <&wkey;45l(l) — Tes-timony held permissible as shorthand rendition of collective facts, to which witness had already testified in detail.
    In prosecution for larceny, testimony that the hide of a yearling found at a place with which accused was connected, in the best judgment of witness, “just like” the hide of the .yearling stolen, held, permissible as shorthand rendition of collective facts, to which witness had already testified in detail.
    . Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; O. Kyle, Judge.
    Joe Pitt was convicted of grand larceny, •and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte Pitt, 104 So. 837.
    G. O. Chenault, of Albany, for appellant.
    The memorandum statement of the clerk that the court was properly organized is not sufficient. Leeth v. Kornman, Sawyer & Co., ■2 Ala. App. 311, 56 So. 757; Edinburgh v. •Canterbury, 169 Ala. 444, 53 So. 823. The opinion of the witness that the hide found looked like the hide of his yearling should mot have been admitted. Tyre v. State, ante, p. 483, 103 So. 91.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   SAMEORD, J.

None of the exceptions reserved to the introduction of evidence present any but the most elementary questions ■of law, all of which were without error.

The evidence presents a question of fact for the jury, and was presented under a careful and able charge by the presiding judge,■covering every phase of the law governing this case.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

On this trial no questions were reserved for review, involving order of continuance, organization of the grand jury which found the indictment, the venire for the grand or petit jury, the organization of the regular juries for the week of the term at which the case was tried.. In the absence of any such question, such proceedings are, upon appeal, liresumed to have been regular and legal. Code 1923, § 3249. .

That the hide of a yearling found at a place with which the defendant was connected, in the best judgment of witness, “just like” the hide of the yearling stolen,* was permissible, as a shorthand rendition of collective facts, to which witness had already testified in detail. 13 Michie’s Digest, 691, par. 290.

Rehearing overruled.