# Davis v. State

> Alabama Court of Appeals · February 4, 1915 · 12 Ala. App. 147

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6522488

## Case

- **Full name:** Davis v. State
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 4, 1915
- **Citations:** 12 Ala. App. 147; 67 So. 770; 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 138
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 1 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/6522488

## Opinion text

BROWN, J.
The indictment described the property as: “Thirty-eight dollars, lawful money of the United States, consisting of two ten-dollar bills of the denomination of ten dollars each, one five-dollar bill of the denomination of five dollars; one one-dollar bill of the denomination of one dollar, eight silver dollars of the value of eight dollars, and four dollars in silver, consisting of twenty-cent pieces and fifty-cent pieces, the property of Ed McGhee.”
This description was sufficiently certain to enable the jury to determine ivhat the proof showed was taken from McGehee’s person was the same as that described *148 in tbe indictment, and, the money described being lawful money of the United States, its value is a matter of judicial knowledge, of which no averment or proof was required. —Hamilton v. State, 147 Ala. 113 , 41 South. 940 ; Chisolm v. State, 45 Ala. 66 ; Rector v. State, 11 Ala. App. 333 , 66 South. 857 ; Wall v. State, 78 Ala. 418 ; Jackson v. State, 69 Ala. 252 ; 25 Cyc. 167.
The use of the word “is,” instead of “in,” in the connection pointed out in the demurrer, was a clerical mistake which is self-correcting. The indictment was sufficient, and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.
The appeal is on the record proper without bill of exceptions, and, as the question above discussed is the only question presented for review, the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6522488. Public record. Not legal advice.