Constitu tion 1901, $ 80. Constitu $81. promise thereof, for his vote or official influence, or for withholding the same; or with an understanding, expressed or implied, that his vote or official action shall be in any way influenced thereby; or who shall solicit or demand any such money or other advantage, matter, or thing aforesaid, for another as the consideration for his vote, or influence, or for withholding the same; or shall give or withhold his vote or influence in consideration of the payment or promise of such money, advantage, matter, or thing to another, shall be guilty of bribery, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than ten years. 6410. Bribing, or attempting to bribe executive, judicial, or legislative officer.-Any person who shall, directly or indirectly, offer, give, or promise any money, or thing of value, testimonial, privilege, or personal advantage, to any executive or judicial officer or member of the legislature to influence him in the performance of any of his public or official duties, shall be guilty of bribery, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than ten years. 6411. Attempt to bribe or corruptly solicit public officers to tion 1901, influence official actions.-Any person who shall corruptly solicit or attempt to solicit or influence a member or members of the legislature or any public officer, state, county, or municipal, or any person who engages in the occupation or practice of soliciting such members or officers to influence their official actions, shall be guilty of an attempt to bribe, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than five years. BRIDGES, RAILROAD TRACKS IN TOWNS AND CITIES (Political Code) .1296-1301 BRIDGES (Criminal Code) .7730, 7731, 7872 BRINGING STOLEN PROPERTY INTO STATE (Criminal Code)..7328, 7231 CHAPTER 178. BUILDING AND LOAN COMPANIES. 6412. 6412. (1132) Unlawful to do business for unlicensed association; penalty.-Any officer, director, or agent of any foreign building and loan association who shall, in this state, solicit subscriptions of stock to such association, or sell or knowingly cause to be sold or issued to a resident of this state, any stock of an association, until said association has complied with the provisions of sections 3604 (1129), 3605 (1130), and 3606 (1131) of this Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars nor more than fifty dollars. BUILDINGS, FENCES, ETC., INJURING OR DEFACING. 6413, 6414. 6413. Injuring or defacing public 6414. Maliciously or negligently 6413. (5620) (3885) (4412, 4420) (3734, 3738) (187, 191) (r.c.c.) Injuring or defacing public or private buildings, or fences thereof. Any person who willfully injures or defaces any church, or schoolhouse, or building belonging to the state, or to any county, city, town, or person, or writes or draws figures, letters, or characters on the walls thereof, or on the fences or inclosures thereof, must, on conviction, be fined not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than three months; and the fine goes to the injured party. It shall not be necessary to aver or prove the ownership of any church or schoolhouse in prosecutions under this section. (Form 26.) Once punishable by being publicly whipped.-Toulmin's Digest, p. 210, § 25. (Aikin's Digest, p. 104, § 24; Clay's Digest, p. 417, § 3.) Whether one who stood by and saw a surveyor run a line between his land and that of another without making objection, acquiesces in the line is a question for the jury.— Wheeler v. State, 109 Ala. 56 (19 So. 993). Construction of an agreement between land owners as to running division lines.-Wheeler v. State, 109 Ala. 56 (19 So. 993). 6414. (5624) (3888) (4413, 4420) (3735, 3738) (188, 190) Maliciously or negligently breaking or destroying fences.— Any person who unlawfully, maliciously, or negligently destroys, throws down, or breaks any fence or inclosure of another, and fails immediately to rebuild or repair the same, must, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty nor more than five hundred dollars, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than six months; and the fine goes to the injured party. Once punishable by being publicly whipped.-Toulmin's Digest, p. 210, § 25. (Aikin's Digest, p. 104, § 24; p. 112, § 72; Clay's Digest, p. 417, § 4; Feb. 13, 1875, p. 260.) The offense is against the possession rather than the ownership of the land; the only intent necessary is the intent to break the enclosure of another, and it is immaterial that the defendant believed that he had a right to break the enclosure.-Wallace v. State, 124 Ala. 87 (26 So. 932). Statute applies to fences as well as enclosures; throwing down and failing to rebuild is within the statute; arbitration as to boundary lines.-Shaw v. State, 125 Ala. 80 (28 So. 390). Partition fences between one's own land and that of another, or a fence situated on one's own land is not within the statute. Surveys admissible in evidence.-Boyett v. State, 132 Ala. 23 (31 So. 551). Evidence as to boundary lines.—Wheeler v. State, 114 Ala. 22 (21 So. 941). Sufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction.-Edwards v. State, 115 Ala. 52 (22 So. 564). Does not apply to tence on defendant's land, though built by other party, and thought to be on builder's land.—Wheeler's case, 109 Ala. 56 (19 So. 993). Does not apply to partition fence.-Ib. Has reference only to fences in which defendant has no property right.-Ib.; Hill's case, 104 Ala. 64 (16 So. 114). "Unlawfully, maliciously and negligently' defined.Wheeler's case, 109 Ala. 56 (19 So. 993). Fence need not be "lawful" fence.— Hill's case, 104 Ala. 64 (16 So. 114). Ownership of fence is properly laid in tenant who is entitled to use thereof.-Ib. It is a defense that defendant threw down the fence to take out his own cattle, unlawfully detained.—Ib. Affidavit need not aver failure to repair break.-Brazleton's case, 66 Ala. 96. If the break is immediately repaired, it is a full defense.-Hill's case, 104 Ala. 64 (16 So. 114). CROSS REFERENCES. BUILDINGS, FENCES, ETC.; INJURING OR DEFACING (Criminal Code) BULKHEADS (Civil Code) BULL (Civil Code) .6413, 6414 4818-4821 4810 6415. (4417) (3786) (4343) (3695) (149) Burglary in a dwelling-house, shop, storehouse, building, inclosure, etc.Any person who, either in the night or day, with intent to steal, or to commit a felony, breaks into and enters a dwellinghouse, or any building, structure, or inclosure within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, though not forming a part thereof; or into any shop, store, warehouse, or other building, structure, or inclosure, in which any goods, wares, merchandise, or other valuable thing is kept for use, sale, or deposit, provided such structure or inclosure, other than a shop, store, warehouse, or building, is specially constructed or made to keep such goods, wares, or merchandise, or other valuable thing, is guilty of burglary, and must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than twenty years. Form 27 (21). (Aikin's Digest, p. 102, § 12; Clay's Digest, p. 426, § 64; Mar. 6, 1875, p. 258.) Burglary and grand larceny may be joined in the same indictment.Lucas v. State, 144 Ala. 63 (39 So. 821). Burglary of chicken house; sufficiency of indictment.-Lucas v. State, 144 Ala. 63 (39 So. 821). It is breaking into a house that constitutes burglary, but breaking out does not.-Brown v. State, 55 Ala. 123. (Statute now changed.) "Dwelling house,'' same meaning as at common law. Ex parte Vincent, 26 Ala. 145. Curtilage includes smokehouse, part in yard and part outside; and breaking, etc., from without sufficient.-Fisher's case, 43 Ala. 17. House used as store in front and where clerk slept in rear, held a dwelling house.—Ex parte Vincent, 26 Ala. 145. Sufficient breaking and entering.—Donohoo's case, 36 Ala. 281. Carter's case, 68 Ala. 96; Pines's case, 50 Ala. 153. Going down an open chimney sufficient; or even getting into a chimney and no further, with intent to steal.-Donohoo's case, 36 Ala. 381; Walker's case, 52 Ala. 376; Olds's case, 97 Ala. 81 (12 So. 409). Breaking outside shutters and protruding hand, without breaking inside window, not sufficient entering.-McCall's case, 4 Ala. 643. Entering open window, and opening door to let in accomplices, not burglary, unless accomplices enter, though may be attempt to commit burglary.—Ray's case, 66 Ala. 281. Boring a hole through floor of cornerib, and letting corn run out, is sufficient, the use of the instrument constituting both the breaking and entering.-Walker's case, 63 Ala. 49. Employe left in charge of house may commit burglary in room where he had no right to enter.-Hild's case, 67 Ala. 39. A servant having the key and right to enter office in day time, may commit burglary by unlocking and entering to steal at night; but not if in the habit of sleeping there at night, and forms intent to steal after entering.-Lowder's case, 63 Ala. 143. Constructive breaking, by servant prearranged to capture thief, held not burglary, when.-Allen's case, 40 Ala. 334. Two persons owning adjoining rooms, not burglary for either to unlock his own door with intent to enter an opening left between the rooms and steal in other's room.-Stone's case, 63 Ala. 115. A farmhand employed to pick cotton who breaks and enters his employer's cotton house, and takes cotton therefrom to put in his basket, to secure compensation therefor as if he picked it, is guilty of burglary.-Fort's case, 32 Ala. 50 (2 So. 477). Ownership of title need not be shown to be in party alleged; possession of such person is sufficient.-Hale v. State, 122 Ala. 85 (26 So. 236). Variance as to one count not availing if conviction is had under another as to which there was no variance.-Sims v. State, 120 Ala. 380 (25 So. 33). House breaking in common parlance implies burglary; a warrant describing it as such may be sufficient.-Adams v. Coe, 123 Ala. 664 (26 So. 652). Burglary and grand larceny may be joined in the same indictment; and the state is not required to elect in such case.-Rose v. State, 117 Ala. 77 (23 So. 638). When ownership of property burglarized is in a corporation, slight change in name of the corporation does not create material variance.-Brown v. State, 115 Ala. 74 (22 So. 458). Burglary of smokehouse from which meat is stolen; circumstantial evidence as to identification of meat and connecting defendant therewith.-Yarbrough v. State, 115 Ala. 92 (22 So. 534). Where the ownership of property is laid by the indictment in the husband it is supported by proof that it belonged to the wife, but was controlled by the husband and used as a part of the domestic establishment.-Richardson v. State, 115 Ala. 113 (22 So. 558); Young v. State, 100 Ala. 126 (14 So. 872). Indictment averring breaking with intent to steal and also averring actual larceny is not demurrable for that reason; though property is owned by corporation, it need not be averred whether it was a foreign or a domestic corporation, or that it had the capacity to acquire property.-Bailey v. State, 116 Ala. 437 (22 So. 918). Venue must be proven.-Bailey v. State, 116 Ala. 437 (22 So. 918); Rose v. State, 117 Ala. 77 (23 So. 638). Evidence circumstantial, if it will aid jury in investigation admissible; evidence of conspiracy to commit.-Cowan v. State, 136 Ala. 101 (34 So. 193). Burglary an infamous crime.-Taylor v. State, 62 Ala. 164. Indictment or proof need not show that building burglarized was specially constructed or made to keep things of value in.— Smith v. State, 140 Ala. 146 (37 So. 157). Indictment must aver an entrance. -Pines's case, 50 Ala. 153. Also that party committed theft or felony, or broke and entered with such intent.-Bell's case, 48 Ala. 684. And if to commit arson, must allege with intent willfully to set fire to, etc.-Pairo's case, 49 Ala. 25. Where the larceny is charged without alleging the intent in breaking, etc., it is necessary to prove the larceny; but if the intent to steal is alleged, and the larceny added, conviction may be had for the burglary, though acquitted of larceny.-Bell's case, 48 Ala. 684; Murray's case, 48 Ala 675; Wolf's case, 49 Ala. 359. May allege the consummation of the intent by an actual larceny of the goods.-Murray's case, 48 Ala. 675; Wolf's case, 49 Ala. 359. What is an averment of grand larceny, and not of burglary.— Bell's case, 48 Ala. 684. When count charges burglary only, and when both burglary and grand larceny.-Ib. May be joined with grand larceny, but not subject to doctrine of merger.-Bell's case, Ib. 694. May be joined with petit larceny in same count.-Snow's case, 54 Ala. 138; Gordon's case, 71 Ala. 315; Borum's case, 66 Ala. 468. But not in different counts.Adams's case, 55 Ala. 143; Barber's case, 78 Ala. 19. Ownership must be precisely laid and proved.-Beall's case, 53 Ala. 460. Properly laid in person having undisputed occupancy and possession.-Matthews's case, 55 Ala. 65. Also may be jointly laid in owner and occupier, if erected for their joint use.-Webb's case, 52 Ala. 422. But may, under the statute, be laid in any one or more of several partners, joint owners, or tenants in common.-White's case, 72 Ala. 195; Williams's case, 67 Ala. 183. Insufficient to allege in a firm name, without naming individuals of the firm.-Davis's case, 54 Ala. 88. Also insufficient to allege ownership in the estate of a deceased person, though named.-Beall's case, 53 Ala. 460 (overruling, on this point, Murray's case, 48 Ala. 675, and Anderson's case, Ib. 665). May allege, in disjunctive, |