Beeson v. Moore

Supreme Court of Alabama

Beeson v. Moore

31 So. 456, 132 Ala. 391, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 32

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 13, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 31 So. 456 (Beeson v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beeson v. Moore, 31 So. 456, 132 Ala. 391, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 32 (Ala. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— The competency of Beeson, the plaintiff, as a witness was challenged by the defendant. The onus ivas on the defendant to' support his challenge' — to show that Beeson Avas not competent. To this end it was shown that Beeson believed in God but did not believe in reAvards and punishments after death: His belief was “that all the punishment a man gets is in this world.” It will suffice for the disposition of this case to say that under the strictest vieAY of the law on this subject that has ever obtained in Alabama the witness was not shown to be incompetent. He was excluded because he did not believe, in an existence after death and reAvards and punishments- in that existence for the good and evil done in this; and that was error. Blocker v. Burness, 2 Ala. 354; Porter v. Cotney, 3 Ala. 314. We need not declare Avhat our ruling Avould be [392]*392had it been shown that the proposed witness did not believe in divine punishments either in this world or the next.

Reversed and remanded.

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

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— The competency of Beeson, the plaintiff, as a witness was challenged by the defendant. The onus ivas on the defendant to' support his challenge' — to show that Beeson Avas not competent. To this end it was shown that Beeson believed in God but did not believe in reAvards and punishments after death: His belief was “that all the punishment a man gets is in this world.” It will suffice for the disposition of this case to say that under the strictest vieAY of the law on this subject that has ever obtained in Alabama the witness was not shown to be incompetent. He was excluded because he did not believe, in an existence after death and reAvards and punishments- in that existence for the good and evil done in this; and that was error. Blocker v. Burness, 2 Ala. 354; Porter v. Cotney, 3 Ala. 314. We need not declare Avhat our ruling Avould be [392]*392had it been shown that the proposed witness did not believe in divine punishments either in this world or the next.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 456, 132 Ala. 391, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeson-v-moore-ala-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack