Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(93 South. 263)
    CAIN v. STATE.
    (2 Div. 250.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 1922.)
    1. • Indictment and information &wkey;>52(I) — Information filed in circuit court need not be sworn to.
    Under Code 1907, § 6739, the information filed in the circuit court on appeal from the county court need not be sworn to.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;34 — Defendant’s belief that custom permitted him to do acts complained of no defense where denounced by statute.
    In prosecution for willfully injuring or defacing a building in violation of Code 1907, § 6413, it was no defense that the defendant believed a custom permitted him to do the acts complained of.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>3l3 — Persons presumed to know the law.
    Every person who has reached the age of accountability is presumed to know the law.
    4. Criminal law <©=25 — One Is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act.
    A person is presumed to know what he does and to intend the natural consequences of his act. ' ft
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; S. F. Hobbs, Judge.
    Elmer Cain was convicted of willfully injuring or defacing a building in violation of Code 1907, § 6413, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Tbe defendant moved to strike the complaint filed by the solicitor because not sworn to, and also objects to going to trial for the' same reason. The charge excepted to by the defendant sufficiently appears from the opinion. The defendant in testifying said that it was the custom for tenants of the company to move improvements from any part of the premises to any other part of the company property without permission, lint that if the removal was to be to property other than that of the company -permission must be obtained.
    S. D. Logan, of Centerville, for appellant.
    The motion to strike the complaint should have been granted. 10 Ala. App. 167, 64 South. 639; 10 Ala. App. 191, 64 South. 637; 12 Ala. App. 196, 65 South. 199; 12 Ala. App. 218, 67 South. 710; sections 7 and 8, Const. 1901. ' The defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge. 36 Ala. 291.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

The prosecution was begun in the county court and on conviction in that court was appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court the solicitor, as required by section 6730 of the Code of 1907, filed his information signed by him. Under this section this information is not required to be sworn to.

The court refused this charge:

“I charge you that if you believe from all the evidence that the defendant honestly believed that there was a custom, and that he tore down the house under it as testified to by him, then your verdict must be acquittal.”

Every person reaching the age of accountability is presumed to know the law,, and an'“honest belief” in a supposed custom could not overturn a criminal statute or render a defendant immune from conviction for crime.

The only way the law can judge of a man’s intention is by what he does. He is-presumed to know what he does and intend the natural consequences of his acts. The-question was one for the jury, and the court correctly so held.

There is no error in the record, and the-judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.