Court Opinion

ID: 9824859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:34:16.214462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:10.467341
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In application for rehearing, appellant insists that the procedure whereby the corrected judgment in the court below was sent up to this court as a return to writ of certiorari, awarded by this court on motion of the Attorney General, was unau-' thorized. The judgment in the court below, as originally enrolled by the clerk, was inaccurate in certain phases and, upon issuance of the writ by this court, the solicitor in the lower court filed a motion to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc. Upon hearing and consideration of same, the trial court *309granted the motion and entered the following in correcting the judgment:
“This cause coming on to be heard on the motion of Gordon Davis as Solicitor for the State of Alabama, to correct certain clerical errors in the judgment entry in said cause, and the same being considered by the court, and it being remembered by the court of his own recollection and from the record in said cause, the court is convinced and remembers from his own recollection that the judgment entry was prepared by the clerk or a stenographer, and that there were, or are, certain clerical errors in said judgment, and that the motion of the State is well taken and should be granted, and it is therefore, the order and - judgment of the court that the said clerical errors in said judgment entry be corrected, and it is the order and judgment of the court that the said judgment e'ntry when •corrected does, and should read as follows, and it is ordered by the court that the said • judgment entry be corrected so as to read as follows, to-wit:
“ ‘The defendant on the appearance of the accused and on demand by accused, caused an issue to be made up to ascertain whether he is the real father of the child or not.
“ ‘On the trial of said issue submitted to the jury the jury returned its verdict as follows: “We, the Jury, find the defendant Lee Franklin the father of bastard child, Frances Lee Turner. W. C. White, foreman.”
“ ‘It is the order and judgment of the court that the defendant, Lee Franklin, is the real father of, Frances Lee Turner, the bastard child of Katie Bell Turner, a single woman. It is further ordered and adjudged that the defendant, Lee Franklin, pay the costs of this proceeding for which let execution issue.
“ ‘It is further ordered and adjudged that the defendant enter into bond with surety to be approved by the Judge in the sum of One Thousand and no/100 ($1000.-00) Dollars payable to the State of Alabama and conditioned to pay the costs of the proceedings and the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars a year on the 1st Monday in January in each year beginning the 1st Monday in January, 1940, for ten (10) years to the Judge of Probate of Tuscaloosa County for the support and education of the child which bond is ordered to be recorded.
“ ‘The defendant (the accused) failing to give such bond it is ordered and adjudged that the State of Alabama have and recover of the defendant, Lee Franklin, for the support and education of the child the sum of six hundred seventy Dollars being the sum at legal interest will produce the amount of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars yearly until the last installment of $100.00 is paid and the whole amount then exhausted.
“ ‘And it is ordered and adjudged that the defendant, Lee Franklin, be and he is hereby sentenced to hard labor for the County for 1 year unless in the meantime he executes the bond required or pays the judgment and costs.
“ ‘It is ordered and adjudged that the proceeds of the defendant’s hire or labor shall be paid to the Judge of Probate for the support and education of the child as provided in Section 3427 of the Code of Alabama (1923). This March 14, 1939. W. C. Warren, Special Judge.’
“Done this the 16th day of December, 1939. W. C. Warren, Special Judge.”
This latter judgment appears regular and under the present state of the record this court is bound by its recitals.
Authority for such procedure is well recognized and has been approved by both appellate courts of this State. Bailey v. State, Ala.Sup., 193 So. 873;1 Rogers v. State, Ala.App., 193 So. 871;2 Phillips v. State, 162 Ala. 14, 50 So. 194. And when return of the writ awarded by this court has been made, the latter record will be regarded as correct. Rogers v. State, supra. Under authority of the Code, Sections 7854 and 7855, the decisions, supra, and others, among them being Lewis v. State, 10 Ala.App. 31, 64 So. 537; Bowden v. State, 19 Ala.App. 377, 97 So. 467; Marks v. State, 135 Ala. 69, 33 So. 657; Story v. State, 178 Ala. 98, 59 So. 480, the procedure followed to correct and complete the record in this case was proper and in it there was no error.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
Opinion extended and application overruled.

 239 Ala. 2.

 Ante, p. 153.