
    (85 South. 305)
    WALKER v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 616.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    April 13, 1920.)
    Robbery <&wkey;17(3) — Description in Indictment of Stolen Money held Sufficient.
    An allegation .in an indictment for robbery that defendant “feloniously took one twenty-dollar bill, of the value of twenty dollars, and four five-dollar bills, of the value of twenty dollars, the property of D.,” is sufficient as against a demurrer for insufficient description of the money.
    <&wkey;>:For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digest's and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.
    Henry Walker was convicted of robbery, and lie appealed.
    Affirmed.
    Omitting formal charging parts, the indictment is as follows:
    Henry Walker feloniously took one twenty-dollar bill, of the value of twenty dollars, and four five-dollar bills of the value of twenty dollars, the property of Sol Dismuke, from his person and against his will by violence to his person, or by putting him in such fear as unwillingly to part with the same.
    Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.
    The indictment was subject to the demurrer. 6 Ala. 845 ; 87 Ala. 80, 6 South. 391; 147 Ala. 104, 41 South. 911. Other offenses being charged in the indictment, the verdict of the jury, “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment” will not support the judgment. 40 Ala. 21; 16 Ala. 781; 42 Ala. 510; 17 Ala. 627.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The demurrer was properly overruled. 61 Ala. 282; Isaac Baldwin v. State, 204 Ala. 91, 85 South. 304.
   MERRITT, J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of robbery, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 20 years.

The appeal is upon the record proper without a bill of exceptions. The only two ques tions presented by this appeal are: (1) The overruling of the demurrers to the indictment on the ground of an insufficient description of the money alleged to have been feloniously taken, etc.; and (2) that the verdict of the jury was indefinite and not sufficient to support the judgment of the court.

These two identical questions have been decided adversely to the contention of the defendant by the Supreme Court in a recent decision, Isaac Baldwin v. State, 85 South. 304, opinion by Justice Sayre, under date of February 12, 1920. Under authority of that case, the judgment of conviction in the instant ease is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      
       204 Ala. 91.
     