MATHEWS, Chief of Police, v. HOLLOWAY. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 19, 1922.) (Syllabus by the Court.) Intoxicating liquors 215 Allegation of "sale" held to include allegation of sale for money, making it sufficient under ordinance. Under an ordinance of a city that provides: "That whoever sells or causes to be sold, either for money or other valuable consideration, any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors in the city of West Palm Beach, Florida, shall be punished," etc., an affidavit that alleges "that the defendant on a named date in the city aforesaid did violate the ordinance by causing intoxicating liquor to be sold in the city of West Palm Beach, Florida, contrary to the law in such cases," etc., sufficiently charges a violation of the ordinance, though it omits to charge that the sale alleged was "either for money or other valuable consideration" in the language of the ordinance, since an allegation that a person sold a thing necessarily includes the allegation that he sold it for money. [Ed. Note. For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Sale.] Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; E. C. Davis, Judge. H. Holloway was convicted of selling spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors in violation of an ordinance of the city of West Palm Beach, Fla., and he sued out a writ of habeas corpus against Frank H. Mathews, Chief of Police, alleging the ordinance void. The circuit court discharged the defendant from further custody, and the defendant Chief of Police brings error. Judgment reversed at the cost of the defendant in error. Blackwell, Donnell & McCracken, of West Palm Beach, for plaintiff in error. C. D. Abbott, of West Palm Beach, for defendant in error. TAYLOR, J. On the 23d of December, 1919, the City of West Palm Beach adopted an ordinance, section 1 of which is as follows: "That whoever sells or causes to be sold, either for money or other valuable consideration, any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors in the city of West Palm Beach, Florida, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred ($500.00) dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than sixty (60) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court." West Palm Beach, Fla., contrary to the law in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the city of West Palm Beach." Upon this affidavit the defendant, Holloway, was tried before the municipal court, pleaded guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to both fine and imprisonment, and was committed to the city jail until such sentence was executed. Thereafter the said defendant, Holloway sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the circuit court of Palm Beach County, alleging therein that said ordinance was void, and that his conviction was not for any crime known to the law, and that he was unlawfully detained in custody. Upon the hearing of the habeas corpus proceeding, the circuit judge discharged the defendant from further custody. Under our statute the chief of police of said city, having custody of said defendant, applied for and obtained a writ of error from this court to review the said judgment in said habeas corpus proceeding. The chief contention urged against the validity of the conviction is that the affidavit upon which the trial was had, charging that the defendant did cause intoxicating liquors to be sold, omits to state in the language of the ordinance that such sale was made "for money or other valuable consideration," and the circuit judge seems to have agreed with this contention. The circuit court erred in its judgment discharging the defendant. The use of the technical word "sale" or "sold" in the charging affidavit necessarily carried with it as part of the meaning of the word "sale" the idea that such sale was in consideration of money or other valuable thing. Mr. Benjamin, in section 1 of the Sixth Ed. of his great work on Sales, defines the word "sale" to be: "A transfer of the absolute or general property in a thing for a price in money. Hence it follows that, to constitute a valid sale, there must be a concurrence of the following elements, viz.: (1) Parties competent; (2) mutual assent; (3) a thing the absolute or general property in which is transferred from the seller to the buyer; and (4) a price in money paid or promised." So that when it is alleged that a person sold a thing, it necessarily includes the allegation that he sold it for money. If a party exchanges a horse for another horse, or gives goods for their value in labor, or for rents due; these latter transactions are not sales, but barter. The judgment of the circuit court in said habeas corpus case is hereby reversed, at the cost of the defendant in error. BROWNE, C. J., and WHITFIELD, EL LIS, and WEST, JJ., concur. (90 So.) MEMORANDUM DECISIONS BARRETT, alias Rose, v. STATE. (6 Div. 537.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 20, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Prosch & Prosch, of Birmingham, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. SOMERVILLE, J. Petition of Ollie Barrett, alias Rose, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of view and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the appeal of John Humphrey v. State, 90 South. 504. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and MCCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur. CHANDLER v. LEE, State Auditor. PER CURIAM. Petition by H. F. Lee, as state auditor, for certiorari to Court of Ap Ex parte BAXLEY. BAXLEY v. STATE. (4 Div. 960.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 20, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals peals to review and revise the judgment of the Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for peti-Court of Appeals rendered on the appeal of tioner. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for ap- State of Alabama ex rel. Chandler v. H. F. Lee, pellee. State Auditor, 90 South. 337. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur. PER CURIAM. Petition of Joe Baxley for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of said court rendered on the appeal of Joe Baxley v. State, 90 South. 434. Writ denied. Ex parte CITY OF DECATUR. Ex parte DAILEY. (8 Div. 364.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. June 9, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, for petitioner. Wert & Hutson, of Decatur, for appellee. MILLER, J. Petition by the city of Decatur for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the appeal of Ex parte Julius Dailey, 90 South. 69. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur. CRAVEY et al. v. CRAVEY et al. (4 Div. 905.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 13, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A. B. Foster, Judge. A. Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellants. J. Morgan Prestwood and E. O. Baldwin, both of Andalusia, for appellees. PER CURIAM. Reversed and rendered by agreement of counsel. FLEMING v. COPELAND. (4 Div. 924.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 6, 1921.) Appeals from Circuit Court, Pike County; A. B. Foster, Judge. A. G. Seay, of Troy, for appellant. H. L. Martin, of Ozark, for appellee. PARRIS v. STATE. (6 Div. 514.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 21, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Burgin & Jenkins, of Birmingham, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. SOMERVILLE, J. Application of J. R. Parris for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the appeal of J. R. Parris v. State, 90 South. 808. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and MCCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur. PIXLEY V. STATE. (8 Div. 351.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. May 12, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, and Tennis Tidwell, of Albany, for appellant. J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State. certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and SAYRE, J. Petition of D. M. Pixley for revise the judgment of the said court rendered on the appeal of D. M. Pixley v. State of Alabama, 90 South. 65. Writ denied. Ex parte PRYOR. (3 Div. 533.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 20, 1921.) Original sell & Brassell, of Montgomery, for petitioner. Petition in Supreme Court. Brassell, BrasHarwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed by appel-bition to be directed to Hon. Walter B. Jones, PER CURIAM. Petition for writ of prohi lant. HUMPHREY v. STATE. (6 Div. 519.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Oct. 20, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. W. T. Stewart, of Birmingham, for appellant. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. Harwell G. Pe Judge of the Circuit Court, and Hon. J. Lee RICKETTS v. STATE. (8 Div. 379.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. June 30, 1921.) THOMAS, J. Petition of John Humphrey | Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Douglass for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to re- Taylor and R. E. Smith, both of Huntsville, for petitioner. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., (rel. Attorney General v. Crane Company, 89 for the State. PER CURIAM. Petition of Will Ricketts for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the appeal of Will Ricketts v. State of Alabama, 90 South. 137. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur. (Su Ex parte RUNYAN. (7 Div. 196.) preme Court of Alabama. Oct. 13, 1921.) Original Petition in the Supreme Court. Garrison & Gay, O. B. Cornelius, Lackey, Pruet & Glass, and R. G. Rowland, all of Ashland, for appellant. McKay & Crumpton, of Ashland, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Petition of W. L. Runyan to have the judge of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit recuse himself and certify his disqualification to sit in the case of J. W. King v. W. L. Runyan. Petition dismissed by agreement of parties. South. 901. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN, STEVENSON v. STATE. (8 Div. 308.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. June 23, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, and Smith, Wilkinson & Smith, of Birmingham, for petitioner. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. MCCLELLAN, J. Petition of Tom Stevenson for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the appeal of Tom Stevenson v. State of Alabama, 90 South. 140. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur. WOODWARD IRON CO. v. BRADFORD et al. (6 Div. 477.) (Supreme Court of AlaEx parte STATE. MCRAYNOLDS v. bama. Oct. 13, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit STATE. (2 Div. 770.) (Supreme Court of Court, Jefferson County; J. C. B. Gwin, Judge. Alabama. Oct. 20, 1921.) Certiorari to Court Huey & Welch, of Bessemer, for appellant. of Appeals. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen.. Beddow & Oberdorfer, of Birmingham, for apand J. F. Thompson, Sol., of Centerville, for pellee. appellant. R. B. Evins, of Greensboro, for appellee. THOMAS, J. Petition of the state of Alabama for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered in the appeal of Eddie McReynolds v. State, 89 South. 825. Writ denied. ANDERSON, C. J., and MCCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur. Ex parte STATE ex rel. DAVIS, Atty. Gen. WARREN v. STATE. (3 Div. 538.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. Nov. 3, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., W. T. Seibels, Sol., and R. G. Arrington, Asst. Sol., both of Montgomery, for appellant. Mark D. Brainard, of Montgomery, for appellee. MILLER, J. Petition by the state, on the relation of its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court reversing and remanding the appeal of J. R. Warren v. State, 90 South. 277. Writ denied. MCCLELLAN, SAYRE, SOMERVILLE, GARDNER and THOMAS, JJ., concur. ANDERSON, C. J., not sitting. STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CRANE CO. (6 Div. 512.) (Supreme Court of Alabama. July 15, 1921.) Certiorari to Court of Appeals. Thomas J. Judge, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant. R. C. Redus, of Birmingham, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Petition by the state of Alabama, on the relation of its Attorney General, for certiorari to Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered on the appeal of State of Alabama ex ANDERSON, C. J. Appeal dismissed, upon the authority of Ex parte Woodward Iron Company (6th Div. 458) 90 South. 803. SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., (Court GRAHAM v. STATE. (8 Div. 805.) of Appeals of Alabama. May 10, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County: C. P. Almon, Judge. Roy Graham was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appealed. Affirmed. This is a companion case to the case of W. B. Smith v. State, 90 South. 45, and the facts are the same in both cases. Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. SAMFORD, J. There is no brief calling the court's attention to any special ruling of the court upon which error is grounded. In the absence of such brief, we have examined each exception, and are of the opinion that the (90 So.) court did not commit reversible error in any of | W. W. Harralson, Judge. Harwell G. Davis, its rulings. The rulings on the admission of Atty. Gen., for the State. evidence are obviously free from error, and the MERRITT, J. Appeal dismissed. question of guilt vel non was one of fact for the jury. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed. MARTIN v. BOOTH. (8 Div. 831.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 31, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge. Griffin & Ford, of Huntsville, for appellee. MERRITT, J. Affirmed on certificate. MOOR v. RAMSEY. (8 Div. 821.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 31, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; C. P. Almon, Judge. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed. WOOTEN v. STATE. (8 Div. 756.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. April 5, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C. P. Almon, Judge. Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. SAMFORD, J. Affirmed, on the authority of State v. Wooten, 88 South. 348. END OF CASES IN VOL. 90 |