# Fennell v. State

> Alabama Court of Appeals · July 21, 1919 · 17 Ala. App. 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3232990

## Case

- **Full name:** Fennell v. State.
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 21, 1919
- **Citations:** 17 Ala. App. 121; 82 So. 569; 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 140
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3232990

## Opinion text

BROWN, P. J.
[1]
The state’s witness
Shaneyfelt testified:
“I lost a bracelet watch in February, 1917, which was taken out of the dwelling house of A. C. Lockhart, in Decatur, Morgan county, Ala., between 8 and 9 o’clock in the morning. I lived in the house with Mr. Lockhart, and it was taken out of my room. The watch was taken from a jewelry box on the dresser. The defendant and a boy by the name of Dunnaway were in my room that morning, and remained there some 25 or 30 minutes. A little more than an hour after they left I missed my watch. I afterwards got the watch back from policeman Bass. * * * I had a room at Mr. Lock-hart’s, 411 West Market street. * * * I rented the room from Mrs. Irene Lockhart. * * * He and his wife both lived there together. * * * I had rented a room from Mrs. Lockhart about a year. While I occupied one room, Mr. and Mrs. Lockhart occupied the balance of the house.”
This evidence tends to sustain the averments of the indictment that the watch was
*122
taken “from the dwelling house of A. C. Lockhart,” and the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence, on the ground that there was a variance between the averments and proof, was properly overruled, and the affirmative charge requested by the defendant was properly refused. Jackson v. State, 102 Ala. 167 , 15 South. 344 .
[2]
It was not permissible for the defendant to show that the witness Slianeyfelt was a woman of lewd habits, or that the place where she lived was “of low character and a notorious place,” or that no other families-except negroes lived near the witness. Terry v. State, 15 Ala. App. 665 , 74 South. 757 ; Coates v. State, 5 Ala. App. 182 , 59 South. 323 ; McCutchen v. Loggins, 109 Ala. 457 , 19 South. 810 ; McQueen v. State, 108 Ala. 54 , 18 South. 843 ; Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52 , 46 South. 273 ; Story v. State, 178 Ala. 98 , 59 South. 480 .
We-find no error in the record.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3232990. Public record. Not legal advice.