Case ID: ala-app_29/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

191 So. 921
    SPURLING v. STATE.
    7 Div. 457.
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 1939.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1939.
    Motley & Motley, of Gadsden, for appellant.
    Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Edwina Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

It is made known to this court, by briefs of counsel, that three indictments were found and returned into court by the Grand Jury, as a result of a difficulty between this appellant and others, with Harold Guice, the alleged injured party, and others. Each of the indictments charged the defendants with the offense of assault with intent to murder, and on the trial the three cases were jointly tried by agreement between the State and the defendants. We are further informed that the facts in the three cases are the same, and likewise, upon ap■peal, the points of decision are identical. Further, that an opinion in one of these cases would necessarily be decisive of all three cases. With this undisputed information, there appears no necessity of writing in detail a decision in this case, as under such agreement this cause should be affirmed.upon authority Phatus Spurling v. State, ante, p. 73, 191 So. 919.

It is so ordered.

Affirmed.