The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-01-12
AD M5I IW lS IN U
 SUP ME COURT Case of gro Sentenced to Be tiuag Reversed 0N FIR COURT ERRED
 Chat tges 12 and 20 Which
 Aeeu Requested by Defen- danl pinion Rendered in sr rger- -Brandes Case
OV FIR COURT ERRED

l Montgomery, January 1f.-(Special) )-ln
 one of the most far reaching supreme
 court decisions ever handed down in Ala | bama. the supreme court of the state to- day reversed and remanded the case of John Adams, Montgomery county negro, against the state of Alabama The ne-
 gro had been sentenced to pay the death penalty some time last fall, but had the sentence stayed by virtue of his appeal
 to the supreme court. He was sentenced
 to be executed for the murder of Police
 man T. w. Brey in this city in October,
 1910, a crime which at the time excited
 the city TO attempted mob violence.
 The court, in passing upon the case, speaking through MT. Associate Justice Anderson, held that the lower court
 erred in refusing charges 12 and 20 which has been requested by the de- fendant, the charges being of a nature
 commonly spoken of as technical"
 The court, however was split on both
 charges, MT. Associate Justice MeCIel-
 land and Somerville dissented in every
 instance to the opinion of the majority of the court
 The significance in the decision. it is pointed out by attorneys who are now
 at the capitol, lies in the objections of the two dissenting justices to the opinion. They say that 1t is the first time in the history of Alabama judi ciary that a concerted effort has been made to override technicalities, and to administer justice upon the merits of the case.
 Charge No. 12 asked by the defend- ant, but refused by the trial court was as follows:
 "The court charges that if there is probability of defendants innocence you should acquit him." Charge No. 20, which was asked by the defense, but not admitted by the court was as follows:
 The court charges that if the states S
 witnesses have exhibited prejudice or anger against the defendant, and satis- lied you that they have not testified truth
 fully and not worthy of belief, and you
 think their testimony should be disregard
 ed you may disregard it altogether" Another of the interesting decisions handed down today was one by Mr. As
 soeate Justice Anderson, in which the su-
 preme court upheld the Bart Chamberlain
 act prohibiting the assignment of un- earned wages.
 The opinion was rendered in the case
 of Speilberger Brothers vs. NJ. D. Brandes
 from the Birmingham city court.
 The supreme tribunal affirmed the de-
 ciSioH or lnc lower court dS Tar as the
 Montgomery consideration of $75 was con
 cerned, declaring that Brandes was en-
 titled to his money for watch he had sold to one Bishop, who was working for Spielberger Bros. But the court found that the demurrers of the appellee, Brandes. which were sustained by the lower court, should not have been sus- tained. In this respect 1t was held that | the trial court was in error, Nut that it | was error without in flrv. | The act was attacked by Brandes who | claimed it was unconstitutional, one of the grounds being that it violated the | federal constitution, and also that it vio- | lated section 45 of the state constitution
 on the ground that the title to the act was l insufficient.
 1 Justices McClelland and Somerville con- 1 cured in upholding the law and the final conclusions reached in the opinion Jus | tice Sayre, though. concurred in the con- | cusion that the case should be affirmed, | but was of the opinion that the act is
 unconstitutional.
 Justices Simpson and Mayfield dissent- | ed from the opinion. They think the act l covers both wages and salaries and that 1 it is not unconstitutional, and that the l judgment of the trial court should be re- versed.