ings where toll bridges on public roads are constructed, and the land entrance thereto on either side, or any person who places obstructions in such fords, or in any manner intentionally interferes with travel through such fords, on conviction, is subject to such penalties as are imposed by law upon defaulting overseers of public roads.

(Jan. 25, 1867, p. 209, § 2.)

7733. (5388) (4122) (4249) (1361) (1176) Changing, obstructing, and injuring public roads.-To change a public road, except by order of the court of county commissioners, founded on a report of viewers appointed by the court, unless it straightens the same through inclosures, or renders it more convenient for the public; to obstruct a public road by a fence, bar, or other impediment, except by gates erected across the same by leave of the court of county commissioners, obtained as provided by law; to cut or place a tree, brush, or other obstacle across or along a public road so as to impede travel, and not remove the same within six hours; willfully to deface, injure, or destroy any milepost, index board, bridge, or causeway; or willfully to injure or obstruct any public road in any way, is a misdemeanor. (Form 80 [66].)

When punitive damages can be awarded for obstructing road.-Tutwiler Co. v. Nail, 141 Ala. 374 (37 So. 634). Form and sufficiency of indictment, see Alexander v. State, 117 Ala. 220 (23 So. 48); Knuckols v. State, 136 Ala. 108 (34 So. 375). Evidence to show that the road in question was a public road. Knuckols v. State, 136 Ala. 108 (34 So. 375). A mere change in some parts of a dedicated road does not show a reclamation by the owner, nor authorize him to obstruct it.-Harper v. State, 113 Ala. 91 (21 So. 354). When road can be lawfully changed.-James v. Hendree, 34 Ala. 488. When not indictable for straightening and rendering road more convenient.-Ib.; MeDade's case, 95 Ala. 28 (11 So. 375). Failure to repair bridge not indictable under this section as "an obstruction of public road."Malone's case, 51 Ala. 55. Obstruction caused by milldam must be willfully done.-Prim's case, 36 Ala. 244. Sufficiency of indictment.-Thompson's case, 20 Ala. 54; Johnson's case, 32 Ala. 583. What no defense to obstructing road opened by an overseer de facto. Thompson's case, 21 Ala. 48. Obstructing by railroad train.-Gude's case, 76 Ala. 100. Statute protects private guideboard which overseers have allowed to remain.—Pullum's case, 88 Ala. 190 (7 So. 148). "Other impediment" construed; obstructing by freight car.-Cen. of Ga. Ry. Co. v. State, 145 Ala. 99 (40 So. 991).

7734. (5389) (4123) (4250) (1366) (1178) Overseers permitting obstructions to remain on public roads; when hands defaulters. Any overseer permitting a fallen tree, dead animal, or such quantity of brushwood as obstructs travel, to remain in or across a public road for three days after notice. thereof, without good excuse, to be determined by the court, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and all hands warned by such overseer for the purpose of removing such tree or brushwood are bound to attend, notwithstanding they may have worked ten

days; and, failing so to do, must be proceeded against by such overseer as other defaulters.

7735. (5390) (4124) (4251) (1367) (1179) Failure to open new road or neglect to repair.-Any overseer who fails to open any new road which he has been appointed to open, or allows his precinct, or any part of the same, to be out of repair more than ten days at any one time, without good excuse, to be determined by the court, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

7736. (5391) (4125) (4252) (1371) (1183) Neglect of duties imposed as to public roads.-Any apportioner, or other officer, on whom any duty is imposed as to public roads, who neglects to perform the same, in case no other provision has been made for the punishment of such neglect, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Appointment of person under twenty-one as road overseer not void; but his minority is personal exemption which he may claim or waive.-Allison's case, 60 Ala. 54. Regularly appointed overseer can only relieve himself by excuse or resignation, as prescribed by statute.-Ib. 54. Sufficiency of indictment. Malone's case, 51 Ala. 55; McCullough's case, 63 Ala. 75. Overseer neglecting to repair for ten days; what an excuse.-McCullough's case, 63 Ala. 75. Apportioners of roads not required to report overseer to grand jury unless overseer has neglected his duty.-Williams's case, 45 Ala. 55.

7737. (5392) (4126) (4253) Failure to work on public road after legal notice.-Any person liable to road duty, who willfully fails or refuses, after legal notice, to work the public roads, either in person or by substitute, without a sufficient excuse therefor, must, on conviction, be fined not less than one dollar, nor more than three dollars, for each day for which he is so in default, and may also be imprisoned in the county jail, or put to hard labor for the county, for not more than twenty days.

(Jan. 19, 1877, p. 135, § § 1, 2.) Sufficiency of excuse is a question for jury; physician's certificate is an exemption from road duty, but not necessary to an excuse for failure to work.-Moss v. State, 143 Ala. 87 (39 So. 198). Sufficiency of affidavit or complaint; that defendant had been notified by another overseer to work a different road, as a defense.-Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 189 (23 So. 28). Failure to prove venue, fatal.-Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 189 (23 So. 28). Perjury based upon false oath on trial for failure to work road.— Bradford v. State, 134 Ala. 141 (32 So. 742). Sufficiency of complaint and warrant.-Brown's case, 63 Ala. 97. Provision in charter of corporation exempting its employes from road duty is constitutional and valid.-Johnston's case, 91 Ala. 70 (9 So. 71); s. c., 88 Ala. 176 (7 So. 253); Lewin's case, 77 Ala. 45. Defendant who has confessed judgment with surety under contract to labor for such surety is not subject to road duty during the time covered by the contract.-Ward's case, 88 Ala. 202 (7 So. 298). Defendant claiming exemption on ground of being an employe of Alabama Insane Hospital, must show he was such employe at time alleged he was liable to road duty.-Lewin's case, 77 Ala. 45.

7738. (5393) (4127) (4174) (1332) (1150) Failure of judge of probate as to duty concerning public roads.-Any judge of probate who fails, on the establishment of a new road, the

division of the same into precincts, and the appointment of the overseers therefor, to issue to such overseers an order directing the opening thereof, or who fails, for ten days after the appointment of overseers and apportioners, to furnish the sheriff with a copy of the order of appointments, or to furnish the sheriff with a statement signed by him of the overseer on any road precinct within his election precinct, and a description of such road precincts, with the names and grades of the roads assigned to such overseer, or to furnish the sheriff with a statement of the names of the apportioners of the election precinct or precincts through which any part of the roads pass, as required by law, must, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty dollars.

7739. (5394) (4128) Failing to keep in repair, and to keep closed gates erected across public roads.-Any person who, having erected a gate across a public road by authority of the court of county commissioners, or board of county revenue, or by authority of any act of the legislature, or any person who succeeds such person in the ownership, control, or possession of such gate, or in the benefits to be derived therefrom, or whose duty it is to keep the same in repair, fails for three or more days to keep such gate in good repair, or any person who leaves open such a gate, must, on conviction, be fined not more than twenty dollars.

(Dec. 10, 1878, p. 172.)

7740. (5395) (4129) (4810) (1369) (1181) Indictment and proof against overseer or apportioner.-In an indictment against an overseer or apportioner of a public road, it is sufficient to charge in general terms that the defendant has failed to discharge his duties as such apportioner or overseer; and the acts or omissions constituting his neglect of duty may be proved on the trial, as well as the excuse therefor, in such cases as excuses are allowed. (Forms 94, 95 [75, 76].)

(See notes to § § 7736 (5391) and 7737 (5392).

7741. (5396) (4130) (1645) (1337) (1155) Refusal of overseer to act after resignation not accepted.-If the judge of probate and county commissioners shall consider insufficient any excuse made by any person appointed overseer of public roads for not accepting the appointment, or shall refuse to accept his resignation of the appointment, and such person thereafter neglects or refuses, after notice thereof, to act under such appointment, he must, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars.

7742. (5397) (4131) (4903) (1373) (1185) Compensation of apportioner prosecuting overseer.-Any apportioner ap

pointed to attend court to prosecute an overseer, who attends for such purpose, is entitled to four cents a mile and two dollars a day, to be taxed in the bill of costs if the defendant is convicted; or on failure to find a bill, or to convict, or if the defendant proves insolvent, to be paid out of the county treasury on the certificate of the clerk.

7743. (5398) (4132) (4901) (1370) (1182) Evidence on trial of overseer for neglect of duty.-On the trial of any person for neglect of duty as overseer, the return of his appointment by the sheriff, or proof of such service in case of its loss, and the acts or admissions of such person to that effect, are evidence of his being overseer; that the road is a public road may be proved by his acts and admissions, and by the use of it as such; and no proof is required, on the part of the state, except that such person was overseer of the road at the time of the default, and that such road was a public road, and proof of the default.

7744. (5399) (4133) (4902) (1372) (1184) Order recognizing road is evidence.-Any order of the court of county commissioners, by which a road is recognized as a public road, is presumptive evidence thereof.

Authority of court of county commissioners to establish, change or discontinue roads or bridges; court exercises a quasi-legislative authority untrammelled by statutory proceedings.-Barks v. Jefferson Co., 119 Ala. 600 (24 So. 505).

7745. Misdemeanor for driver to fail to keep to right of (w.c.c.) road. Any driver of any carriage or other vehicle, whether of burden or pleasure, using any public road, who, willfully and without good cause, fails to keep to the right hand when met or overtaken by another carriage or other vehicle, so as to permit the carriage or vehicle so meeting or overtaking to pass freely and uninterruptedly, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars.

7746. (5479) (3742) (4311) (3668) (126) Punishment of robbery. Any person who is convicted of robbery must be punished, at the discretion of the jury, by death, or by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than ten years. (Form 96 [77].)

(Aikin's Digest, p. 102, § 11; Clay's Digest, p. 416, § 28.) Crimes for which capital punishment in inflicted enumerated.--Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70 (20 So. 103). Conversation between co-conspirators not in the presence of defendant on trial hearsay and not admissible.-James v. State, 115 Ala. 83 (22 So. 565). There is a fatal variance if indictment alleges certain facts to be unknown and it is shown that they were known.-James v. State, 115 Ala. 83 (22 So. 565); Winter v. State, 90 Ala. 637 (8 So. 556). Indictment describing money as "one ten-dollar bill, one two-dollar bill, and a one-dollar bill, all of said bills being paper money of the currency of the United States of America," is sufficient as to description.-Thomas v. State, 117 Ala. 84 (23 So. 659). Nature and extent of violence inflicted on person by defendant admissible in evidence; evidence that another person was suspected of crime; admissibility of paper as evidence.-Brown v. State, 120 Ala. 342 (25 So. 182). As a general rule, witness cannot testify to uncommunicated motives; exception to the rule is on cross-examination witness may be asked whether he made given statements, or he may be asked what motive prompted him to act as he did.-Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39 (26 So. 521). Letter found, held to be admissible in evidence.-Williams v. State, 123 Ala. 39 (26 So. 521). Indictment charging robbery of money need not show the lawful possession of the money on the part of the person robbed.-Danzey v. State, 126 Ala. 15 (28 So. 697). Record must affirmatively show that the day was set for the trial, that the jury was drawn in accordance with the law for capital cases.— Kinnebrew v. State, 132 Ala. 8 (31 So. 567). Indictment describing a coin as "thirty cents in specie coin of the United States, consisting of one piece of the denomination of twenty-five cents and one piece of the denomination of five cents," is sufficient as to description.-Nevill v. State, 133 Ala. 99 (32 So. 596). Describing the property taken as "a bunch of keys of the value of one dollar and a knife of the value of seventy-five cents," is suffi cient. Nevill v. State, 133 Ala. 99 (32 So. 596). Statement by solicitor that "this oft-repeated criminal should be severely dealt with, " held legitimate argument.-Johnson v. State, 134 Ala. 54 (32 So. 724). Defense of former jeopardy or acquittal must be specially pleaded.-Johnson v. State, 134 Ala. 54 (32 So. 724). Conviction may be had for an assault with intent to rob, for larceny, for assault and battery, or for a simple assault, under an indictment charging robbery.-Rambo v. State, 134 Ala. 71 (32 So. 650); Cook v. State, 134 Ala. 137 (32 So. 696). Evidence to show that defendant was compelled by duress, by being put in fear by third party to commit the robbery. Thomas v. State, 134 Ala. 126 (33 So. 130). When defendant not entitled to severance as a matter of right; demand for severance comes too late after state has announced ready.-Hudson v. State, 137 Ala. 60 (34 So. 854). When book not best evidence as to amount of money stolen.-Hudson v. State,