Golson v. The State

Golson v. The State. Crime. (Decided January 9, 1917. 73 South. 753.) Name; Idem Sonans. — The name Golson, and the name Gholston, are idem sonans. Although spelled differently, if names sound or are pronounced alike, and the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing between them when.pronounced, they are regarded as similar, and the insertion of a letter makes an immaterial variance. Appeal from Montgomery City Court. Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter.. Minnie Golson was convicted of crime and she appeals. Affirmed. L. A. Sanderson, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State. [MAJORITY — PELHAM, P. J.] PELHAM, P. J. The defendant is indicted by the name of “Minnie Golson.” The plea in abatement for misnomer, which is based on the alleged fact that her true name was “Minnie Gholston,” was demurred to on the ground that the names “Golson” and “Gholston” are idem sonans. The court decided that the variance was not sufficient to support a plea in abatement on the ground of misnomer, and sustained the demurrers to the plea. We think the trial court correct in its ruling. It is the familiar rule that the law does not regard the spelling so much as the sound of names, and that, by the doctrine of idem sonans, two names, although spelled differently, if they sound alike, or are pronounced alike, and the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing between the two, are to be regarded as the same. Usually the insertion or omission of a “t” before thé ending “son” is held immaterial. — 29 Cyc. 275, and authorities cited in note 57. See the following cases, which will be found to support our holding: Rooks v. State, 83 Ala. 79, 3 South. 720; Burton v. State, 10 Ala. App. 214, 65 South. 91. We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Affirmed.