The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-11-04
ruUHWMIHm MIHmR KzlFBlFMHalIaII
BROOKE V THE STATE.

BROOKE THE SlAl6. Aassault and Battery-(Decided April
 21. 190S.-46 South. 491)
 I. Criminal law; former jeopardy; jurisdiction of municipal officers.- Where the law confers on municipal officers Jurisdiction to try ofenses against the State. the State makes them it's officers in the trial, and where crime in one of Its phases Is prosecut- ed through such authorized officers, IL cannot be subsequently, prosecuted by other of the States officers under the col0r of another name, since a single crime cannot be divided into two or more offenses.
 2A Same; plea of former jeopardy; sudiciency.--A plea of former jeopardy whteh alleges the jurisdiction or Ihe Mayors court to try offenses against fheeState; that defendant was tried for an offense against the State in such court and that it was the identical or fense for which he was here prose- cutSd is sufficient, where the act ere atirlg the character of the city gives 10 the Mayors court Jurisdiction concur rent with the county and circuit courts in criminal cases.
 3ESame: former jeopardy; concurrent iurisdiction.--Where two courts have coneurrent Jurisdiction of an onense. an hcauitaI or conviction in one will barka prosecution in the other.
 4 Same; trial; aequittal; effect.-A judgment of acquittal in the Mayors court of a town, in which the Mayor has concurrent jurisdiction with the Cir cult or City Court for the trial of offenses against the State, is not void because the arrest was not based on an afidavit. since, in this particular instance, the charter authorizes the marshal to make arrest for onenses committed In his presence or for 'of- fenSes which he has probable cause to believe were committed within the cor porate limits of the town.
 & Same; plea of misnomer; replica tion: suflciency.--Where the plea or mishomer sets up that the name Of de- fendant was Hadley and not Hodley' asgset forth in the indictment reph. cation thereto alleging that the second letter in the Christian name of accused was an 'a' and not an "o,' and That ftswas the intention of the solicitor who drew the indictment to so write it. was sufficient against demurrer 1n- tefposed thereto.
 g. Same; issued; evidence; admissi- bitity.-Under an issue made up by plka of misnomer setting forth that attendants name was "Hadley" and not eaodley.~ and a replication thereto that the second letter in the Christian nasne of defendant was an "a" and not arS @o," and that the solicitor so intend- ed to write it, 1t was competent to chow by the solicitor who drew the in dictment that the name was written '.Hadiey" and not "Hodley," and that the second letter was an a and not an O." and that the solicitor always naade his "a's" in that manner.
 q Assault and battery; evidence; edl- tofials-Under Section 4345, Code 1S96, 1t swas competent for accused to intro duce in evidence an abusive editorial,
 4kaA he adj fnH thk paper was the person assaulted, that the editorial was published so recently or that 1t came to the knowI- edke of accused so recently, as to be atkor near the time of the assault.
 5. Same; physical condition of &C., cuAed.--Proof of the physical condi- tidn of the defendant is inadmissible under a charge of assault and battery.
 ,. Same; premeditation.-Und Lne charge of assault and battery, the question of reconciliation is not an isaue.
 aO. Same; uncommunicated intent or mbtive.-Questions seeking to elicit way defendant carried a walking cane we're objectionable as calling for un- cdnmunicated motives or intent, aslde from the fact that anyone has the right tos carry a cane.
 hI. Criminal law; jurisdiction: local itN.sof of9ense-Where an offense was committed in a house used as the UHned States postoffice, but it appears thnt 1t was rented by the postmaster foKR that purpose, and was not upon gaaunds ceded to the United States, 1t is not necessary to inquire into the St@4e's right to try offenses committed .fh4re or to pass upon the force and ensct of Section 62S, Code 1896.
 42 Same! instruction; elliptical in- stfactfons are always properly refused. Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court.
 Heard before Hon. J. c. Richardson. Reversed and remanded. opinion by Sitapson. J.
 #yson, c. J.. DOwden and Anderson, JJN concur.
 CcELIEF V TENNESSEE COAL, IRON
 AND RAILWAY COMPANY. D&mages For Injury to Employe.-(De-
 cided April 16. 19Os,-45 South
 4s7)
 Il Master and servant; injury to se8vant; superintendent; relationship; nkaerfality.-Under subdivision 2, sec ti6A 3910, Code 1907. it Is not essential tdAn employers liability for negligent