Case ID: ala_67/html/0089-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SOMEEYILLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Adams v. The State of Alabama.
    
      Indictment for-an Affray.
    
    ]. 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. •
    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.
    Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court.
    Tried before Hon. L. F. Box.
    The facts need not be stated.
    J. H. Savage, for appellant.
    H. C. Tompkins, Attorney-General, for the State.
   SOMEEYILLE, J.

— The indictment in this case charges the 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.

Under 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.

We 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.

Reversed and remanded.