Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0422-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(92 South. 239)
    LYNN v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 854.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 10, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied April 4, 1922.)
    1. Indictment and information <&wkey;l 10(23)— Violation of tick eradication law sufficiently charged in words of statute.
    An affidavit charging violation of the tick eradication law (Acts 1919, p. 30, § 5) in the words of the statute, for failing to dip cattle kept in a tick-infested area, is sufficient.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>l 116 — Ruling on demurrer to affidavit charging misdemeanor, not shown fiy record, not reviewabie.
    The record failing to show any ruling on a demurrer to an affidavit charging misdemeanor, such alleged ruling is not reviewabie on appeal.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.
    Sam Lynn was convicted for violating the tick eradication law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The following is the affidavit, omitting formal charging part:
    “Geo. Vanderver, who, being duly sworn, says that Sam Lynn; whose name is otherwise unknown to affiant, within 12 months before making this affidavit, in said county, did have in his possession, or in charge as owner or otherwise, one or more cattle in a tick-infested or quarantined county, or on a tick-infested or quarantined premises, range, farm, or .pasture, that have not been released from state and federal quarantine, and did fail to dip said cattle within the time and at the place designated and required by law, after having been legally notified in writing by a local inspector to do so, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama.”
    Horace G. Alford, of Birmingham, for appellant. .
    This case should be reversed and remanded on the authority of, 17 Ala. App. 419, 84 South 883.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The law has been changed since the case referred to by appellant was decided, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer. Ante, p. 83, 89 South. 97; Bradford v. State, ante, p. 401, 92 South. 17.
   SAMFORD, J.

Since the opinion in the Horn Case, 17 Ala. App. 419, 84 South. 883, the quarantine laws have been changed, and defendant is being prosecuted under section 5 of Acts 1919, p. 29, approved February 7, 1919. The affidavit follows the language of the statute and is sufficient to charge the offense condemned by the statute. Besides, the record fails to show any ruling on the demurrers, and hence we cannot review them here.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing.

The former opinion is withdrawn; the foregoing opinion substituted. The judgment of reversal is set aside, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. 
      <§=For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes