Bradford v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bradford v. State

92 So. 17, 18 Ala. App. 401, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 96

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 17, 1922·No. 6 Div. 855.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

On appeal from the Jefferson county court of misdemeanor, to the circuit court, the defendant was convicted under a complaint which charged that he failed to dip his cattle after being warned to do so.

*402 [1] There are certain demurrers set out in the record, but the judgment entry does not recite that they were presented to, considered, or acted upon by the court, and, this being true, this court cannot consider them. Birmingham, E. & B. R. R. Co. v. Hoskins, 14 Ala. App. 254, 69 South. 339; Yarbrough v. State, 15 Ala. App. 460, 73 South. 830.

However, the questions raised by the demurrers have been decided adversely to the defendant in the case of Williams v. State ante, p. 83, 89 South. 97.

[2] There is no bill of exceptions in the transcript; consequently, the court’s refusal to give certain written charges asked by the defendant will not be reviewed. 13 Mitehie’s Digest, 795; Moran v. State, 15 Ala. App. 379, 73 So. 748; Yarbrough v. State, 15 Ala. App. 460, 73 So. 830; Ward v. State, 15 Ala. App. 598, 74 So. 727; Graham v. State, 16 Ala. App. 87, 75 So. 635.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

On appeal from the Jefferson county court of misdemeanor, to the circuit court, the defendant was convicted under a complaint which charged that he failed to dip his cattle after being warned to do so.

*402 [1] There are certain demurrers set out in the record, but the judgment entry does not recite that they were presented to, considered, or acted upon by the court, and, this being true, this court cannot consider them. Birmingham, E. & B. R. R. Co. v. Hoskins, 14 Ala. App. 254, 69 South. 339; Yarbrough v. State, 15 Ala. App. 460, 73 South. 830.

However, the questions raised by the demurrers have been decided adversely to the defendant in the case of Williams v. State ante, p. 83, 89 South. 97.

[2] There is no bill of exceptions in the transcript; consequently, the court’s refusal to give certain written charges asked by the defendant will not be reviewed. 13 Mitehie’s Digest, 795; Moran v. State, 15 Ala. App. 379, 73 So. 748; Yarbrough v. State, 15 Ala. App. 460, 73 So. 830; Ward v. State, 15 Ala. App. 598, 74 So. 727; Graham v. State, 16 Ala. App. 87, 75 So. 635.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Bradford v. State, 92 So. 17, 18 Ala. App. 401, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 96 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

92 So. 17 (Bradford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related