Court Opinion

ID: 9825483
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:11:21.251913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:53.651128
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In brief of counsel on application for rehearing it is indicated' that we did not make clear our treatment of the first question discussed in the original opinion. It was our intention to hold that the record did not disclose that any objections were interposed to a trial by a jury. The only place the question was raised was in brief of counsel. In the absence of objections *406in the nisi prius court, which must appear in the record, we take it that appellant was satisfied with -the procedure and is charged with having waived the right of a trial without a jury.
Complaint is made also that we omitted to make reference to the case of Smith v. State, 17 Ala.App. 565, 86 So. 120, which appellant’s counsel cited in original brief and which he now says “would seem to be very much on all fours with the case at bar.”
In our view of the Smith case, supra, we considered the facts to be so dissimilar to the facts in the instant case that we did not see how any useful purpose could be gained by an analysis of the former. We quote its facts as found in the reporter’s recitation:
“The sheriff of Talladega county and two revenue officers arrested Hugo Smith and Grady Walker as they were driving along a road in a buggy and found some whisky that Grady Walker had thrown out of the buggy. Smith was not seen with any whisky, and Walker testified that he had the whisky in his pocket when Smith caught up with him and when he got into Smith’s buggy. There was some evidence tending to show that in the buggy were some grate bars, belonging to an old still that the officers had previously destroyed.”
We still entertain the opinion that it does not have any factual value to aid us in determining whether or not the affirmative charge should have been given the defendant in the case at bar.
Pending the application for rehearing in this case, the Supreme Court has decided and published the case of Thompson et al. v. State ex rel. Key, Ala.Sup., 25 So.2d 671.1 The latter was a condemnation proceeding and was submitted on the same testimony taken in the case at bar. The conclusions reached by the Supreme Court support our original opinion on the instant inquiry.
We see no reason or profit for us to extend our remarks on other questions decided in the opinion as first written.
Application for rehearing overruled.

 247 Ala. 585.