Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0685-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(77 South. 993)
    ADDINGTON v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 16.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 1917.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1917.)
    1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1133 — Abpeal — Rehearins.
    An order overruling application for a rehearing is subject to revision by the Court of Appeals during the remainder of the term.
    2. False Pretenses <&wkey;49'(6) — Evidence — Sufficiency.
    Evidence held not to sustain a conviction for obtaining a mortgage by falsely pretending that accused was authorized to, and would; render services as an attorney in return therefor.
    Appeal from Criminal. Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
    Upon reconsideration of application for rehearing, judgment of conviction reversed and ease remanded.
    For former opinions, see ante, p. 10, 74 South. 846; 200 Ala. 414, 76 South. 6.
    Certiorari denied 201 Ala. 331, 77 South. 993.
    Gibson & Davis, Gaston & Drennen, and H. K. White, all of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty, Gen., for the State.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant’s application for rehe.ariñg was overruled by this court on October ,19, .1916, during the first month of' the preseht term, and that order is still in the breast of the court and subject to the control of the court. Minto v. State, 9 Ala. App. 95, 64 South. 369; Ex parte Minto, 187 Ala. 671, 65 South. 516; Ex parte Adams, 187 Ala. 10, 65 South. 514.

This court,-in view of the suggestion in the opinion of, Justiqe, Sayre, of the Supreme Court, concurred in 'by' Justice Thomas', (Ex parte Addington, 76 South. 6 ), has le-examiiied the facts as presented by the record in this case, which are set out in the opinions heretofore promulgated by Judge Brown, and reported in 74 South. 846-861, and all concur that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the defendant’s conviction, and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The order overruling the defendant’s application is therefore set aside and vacated, the application is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, and the judgment of the criminal court is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded. 
      
       200 Ala. 414.
     
      
       Ante, p. 10.