Batchelor v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Batchelor v. State

160 So. 555, 26 Ala. App. 305

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1935

Docket4 Div. 115.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 So. 555 (Batchelor 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

Batchelor v. State, 160 So. 555, 26 Ala. App. 305 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Justice.

The indictment was in two counts, the first charging that defendants manufactured whisky and the second the unlawful possession of a still. The court, at the opening of his oral charge, expressly eliminated the first count of the indictment and withdrew its consideration from the jury. This left the second count only, on which the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. This verdict was résponsive to the indictment charging an unlawful possession of a still and is sufficient to support the judgment rendered.

We have carefully read and considered each exception reserved to the admission of testimony and the rulings of the court on the motions to exclude and find all of them to be free from prejudicial error.

The principal question insisted on in brief of counsel is the action of the trial court in overruling the defendants’ motion for a new trial on account of the misconduct of the sheriff in dealing with the jury pending the trial and during the time the jury was in his custody. The conduct of the sheriff, as alleged in the tenth ground of the motion for a new trial, would present a matter for serious consideration, if there was evidence to 'substantiate the charge made, hut the affidavits of the two defendants that such reports had come to them from reliable sources is mere hearsay and cannot be considered as evidence.

There is no reversible error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Justice.

The indictment was in two counts, the first charging that defendants manufactured whisky and the second the unlawful possession of a still. The court, at the opening of his oral charge, expressly eliminated the first count of the indictment and withdrew its consideration from the jury. This left the second count only, on which the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. This verdict was résponsive to the indictment charging an unlawful possession of a still and is sufficient to support the judgment rendered.

We have carefully read and considered each exception reserved to the admission of testimony and the rulings of the court on the motions to exclude and find all of them to be free from prejudicial error.

The principal question insisted on in brief of counsel is the action of the trial court in overruling the defendants’ motion for a new trial on account of the misconduct of the sheriff in dealing with the jury pending the trial and during the time the jury was in his custody. The conduct of the sheriff, as alleged in the tenth ground of the motion for a new trial, would present a matter for serious consideration, if there was evidence to 'substantiate the charge made, hut the affidavits of the two defendants that such reports had come to them from reliable sources is mere hearsay and cannot be considered as evidence.

There is no reversible error in the record and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 So. 555, 26 Ala. App. 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/batchelor-v-state-alactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack