The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-04
Head Notes Qf the Decisions
 Of Alabama Supreme Court

supreme NOuTI 1 5. Trespass; instructions- Where. 1 m trespass for the taking of certain soous, the evidence established that tne trespass was not committed by one , act nor in single day. but showed 1 that the several acts were continuous ana constituted continuing trespass. an instruction that plaintiff could not 1 recover property taken on different l days was properly refused.
 1 y. Sare.--Where, in trespass for the 1 taxing of certain goods, defendants were present and participated in the taking. and their agents and servants were directed by them to seize the | property an instruction that defend- ants We're not liable for damages done /! oy their agents or servants. but only 1 Tor the acts of defendants themselves. was properly refused.
 TO- Same; malice.--In an action for trespass in the taking of certain goods. an instruction that defendants were not | liable for the malice of their agents 1 In taking the property, even If there was malice. was properly refused as pretermitt.ng consideration of evidence showing that one of the defendants was present, and as also pretermitting par ticipatfon in the malice of the agents by defendants
 II. Trial: request to charge: instruc- | tons given.-The refusal of an in- 1 struction substantially covered by oth- | CT instructions given was not error. 42. Same; legal authorities.-An in- structlon that certain Supreme Court decision was later and a recognized l authority. and superseded another case | on the subject of the foreclosure of l mortgages without legal process, was l erroneous.
 Appeal from Tallapoosa Circuit | Court.
 Heard before Hon. S. l.. Brewer. | Reversed and remanded. Opinion hy | Denson. J.
 Weakley. c. J and HaraIson and Dowdell. JJ., concur.
 THE STATE vs. PATTERSON
 Violating Stock Law.-(Decided April oth, 1906. AZ So. Rep 19.) l. Animals; running at large; crin1 inal prosecution: indictment; suffj ciency.-An indictment whic3 chargel that defendant "unlawfully'' permitted hogs to run at large incertain desiTna- ted territory, was sufficient under acts prohibiting one from knowingly permitting animals to run at large m such territory.
 2. me.-Acts 1s96-97, p. GAS, pro hibits animals from running at larg | HI CSi ldii oSoiSuAIeO terr.tOry, ACtS 19O0-01, p. TIA. amended said first act enlarging the territorial area to the entire county: held, that ln indict- ment charging that defendant unlaw fully allowed hogs to run at large in territory in Madison county in which hogs are prohibited from running at large without describing the territo- ry Is gooo even if it conceded that the amendatory act ir uncorstitution- al, since its unconstitutionality could not affect the validity of the orig inal ict, and proof of a running at large in the prohibited territory un- der original act would warrant a conviction.
 3. Co 1stitutional law: amendment of statutes: setting forh provision as amended.-An act amending another, which sets out in the body the amend ment in full, need not, under Section 2, Article f, Constitution 1875. set out or recite the old law as 1t stood before the amendment.
 | | Same; subjects and titles; crimes. l-An act whose title recites that 1t Is to prevent hogs running at large in | Madison county" Is not rendered un- constitutional because in it's body 1t appears to be an act to amend Section 1 of an act to prevent hogs from running at large in certain portions | or MdQlSou county, III lHdS ito Sup- ject is not clearly expressed in the u tic.
 Rehearing denied June 30th, 1896. Appeal from Madison county court. 1 Heard before Hon. w. T. Lawler. l Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Tyson, J.
 Weakley. c. J., Simpson and Ander. son, JJ.. concur.
 SMITH vs. ALEXANDER, EFT AL
 Petition by Administrator for Sale of 1 Lands for Payment of Debts | (Decided May 18th, 1906. AZ SA
 Rep. 29.>
 1. Administrators: administrators de bonis non; appointment; collateral attack.-The administrator de bonis non petitioned to sell lands for dis tribution, whereupon grantees of de- cedent intervened and moved to dis miss petition on grounds that when the administrator de bonis non was appointed there was a July qualified administrator in charge of the estata Held, a collateral attack on the ap- | pointment of the administrator de oo- his non. -:
 2 Same: want of jurisdiction; pre- sumptions When it does not affirm atively appear of record that the person appointed administrator de bo- his non was not q person authorized 1 by statute 10 make lol appointment although 1t does appear that the application for removal of the former administrator and The, order removing him were made on the same day. and no citations were issued. the court in which the collateral attack IS made will indulge the presumption or the existence of everything necessary to give validity to the appointment or the administrator dc bonis non, the appointment being made by court or general Jurisdiction of the subject l matter. unless the record contradicts some jurisdictional fact or requisite.
 Appeal from Autauga Probate Court, | Heard before Hon. C.. $. Llvlngs- ton.
 Reversed and rcmandcd. Opinion ] by Denson, J.
 Tyson, simpson and tndcrson, U | concur.
 JACOBS vs. THE STATE. F. | Assault with Intent to Murder. tpe- ! :. cided May 19. 1906. r. So. Rep | 7Q) .~ ... ~+. .'-~-~ L. Criminal law; venue. application for change; suflicicnCy. An hppli"a-
 tinn for change of venue alleging facts showing that accused could not have il fair trial in the city and the | ,,cat in which the city is situated, but
 merely alleging. without stating any
 facts. that the feeling was such that 1 accused could not get fair trial in
 in. county, is dcmurrable.
 Grand iury; adjourrments-Cu