Ausby v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Ausby v. State

103 So. 921, 20 Ala. App. 670

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1925

Docket3 Div. 485.

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 921 (Ausby v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ausby v. State, 103 So. 921, 20 Ala. App. 670 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Thd only questions before us for decision in this case are these: Did the court err in refusing to give, at the defendant’s request, the general affirmative charge in his favor? And was there error in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant the defendant a new trial? A detailed discussion of the evidence could serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say *671 that we have gone over the record in consultation, and it is our opinion that same shows ample evidence upon which to sustain the verdict and the judgment rendered. It follows that the trial court did not commit error in either of the particulars mentioned. Lee v. State, 18 Ala. App. 566, 93 So. 59; Anderson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 585, 93 So. 279; Pellum v. State, 89 Ala. 28, 8 So. 83. Let the case be affirmed. Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RICE, J.

Thd only questions before us for decision in this case are these: Did the court err in refusing to give, at the defendant’s request, the general affirmative charge in his favor? And was there error in overruling appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant the defendant a new trial? A detailed discussion of the evidence could serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say *671 that we have gone over the record in consultation, and it is our opinion that same shows ample evidence upon which to sustain the verdict and the judgment rendered. It follows that the trial court did not commit error in either of the particulars mentioned. Lee v. State, 18 Ala. App. 566, 93 So. 59; Anderson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 585, 93 So. 279; Pellum v. State, 89 Ala. 28, 8 So. 83. Let the case be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 921, 20 Ala. App. 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ausby-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack