Beecham v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Beecham v. State

109 So. 557, 21 Ala. App. 499, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 250

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1926

Docket7 Div. 211.

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 557 (Beecham 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

Beecham v. State, 109 So. 557, 21 Ala. App. 499, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 250 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

*500 RICE, J.

The state has made a motion to strike the bill of exceptions upon the ground that it was not signed by the presiding judge within 60 days from the date of its presentation, as required by law. The indorsements made by the trial judge show that the bill was presented to him October 29, 1925, and that the same was signed by him January 8, 1926. The bill was not signed within'60 days, but 71 days from the date of presentation. The motion to strike is granted. Code 1923, § 6433; Ettore v. State, 214 Ala. 99, 106 So. 508.

The only questions presented for review are those resulting from the refusal of certain charges requested by defendant. In the absence of a bill of exceptions we will not review the action of the trial court in refusing requested charges. Ramsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 373, 92 So. 94.

Finding no error on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*500 RICE, J.

The state has made a motion to strike the bill of exceptions upon the ground that it was not signed by the presiding judge within 60 days from the date of its presentation, as required by law. The indorsements made by the trial judge show that the bill was presented to him October 29, 1925, and that the same was signed by him January 8, 1926. The bill was not signed within'60 days, but 71 days from the date of presentation. The motion to strike is granted. Code 1923, § 6433; Ettore v. State, 214 Ala. 99, 106 So. 508.

The only questions presented for review are those resulting from the refusal of certain charges requested by defendant. In the absence of a bill of exceptions we will not review the action of the trial court in refusing requested charges. Ramsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 373, 92 So. 94.

Finding no error on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 557, 21 Ala. App. 499, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beecham-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack