Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0548-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMPORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(79 South. 805)
    LEE v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 561.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 29, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1918.)
    1. Statutes @=>141(2)--Re-enactment — Setting Out at Length.
    Acts 1915, p. 862, re-establishing county courts, is not violative of Const. § 45, providing that laws re-enacted, amended, or extended shall be set out at length.
    2. Criminal Law @=655(5) — Trial—Announcement oe Judge.
    Announcement by trial judge in open court during closing argument of state’s solicitor that further argument was unnecessary, as he would give general charge for state, which he correctly gave, was not error.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
    T. J. Lee was convicted of practicing dentistry without a license, 'and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The facts were without dispute that defendant had practiced dentistry without a license, making charges therefor, and that he had not received a license from the State Board of Dental Examiners, nor was there such a license on file in the office of the judge of probate of Barbour county,
    McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant. P. Loyd Tate, A tty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMPORD, J.

Two questions are presented for review. The first: Is the law re-establishing county courts (Acts 1915, p. 862) void as being enacted iu violation of section 45 of the Constitution? So far as this court is concerned, this question is settled adversely to appellant in the case of State ex rel. Garrett v. Torbert, 200 Ala. 663, 77 South. 37.

Second. Both the state and defendant requested of the court in writing the giving of the general affirmative charge. After the opening argument by the solicitor and the argument by defendant’s counsel, the solicitor began his closing argument, whereupon the court told the solicitor iu the presence and hearing of the jury that further argument was unnecessary, as he would give the charge as requested iu writing by the state. To this statement of the court the defendant reserved an exception. The announcement by the Judge in open court that he would give the general charge for the state, which he correctly gave, .was not error.

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

Affirmed.