Bufford v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bufford v. State

175 So. 329, 27 Ala. App. 491, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 80

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1937

Docket6 Div. 968.

StatusPublished

This text of 175 So. 329 (Bufford 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

Bufford v. State, 175 So. 329, 27 Ala. App. 491, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 80 (Ala. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment in this case charged the defendant with the offense of using abusive, insulting, or obscene language in the presence or hearing of a woman. The case was tried before a jury who returned a verdict of guilty and assessed a fine of $100. Failing to pay said fine, and the cost incident to the trial, or to confess judgment therefor, the court duly sentenced the defendant to perform hard labor for the county for the period of time provided by the governing statute. From the judgment of conviction, this appeal was taken.

The rulings of the court on the trial of this case to which exceptions were reserved are so clearly free from reversible error as to need no discussion. The questions involved are elementary. The evidence in the case was in conflict; it was, however, in our opinion ample to sustain the verdict of the jury and tó support the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered.

No briefs have been filed in behalf of appellant, or by the state.

The judgment of convictibn from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.

’ Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment in this case charged the defendant with the offense of using abusive, insulting, or obscene language in the presence or hearing of a woman. The case was tried before a jury who returned a verdict of guilty and assessed a fine of $100. Failing to pay said fine, and the cost incident to the trial, or to confess judgment therefor, the court duly sentenced the defendant to perform hard labor for the county for the period of time provided by the governing statute. From the judgment of conviction, this appeal was taken.

The rulings of the court on the trial of this case to which exceptions were reserved are so clearly free from reversible error as to need no discussion. The questions involved are elementary. The evidence in the case was in conflict; it was, however, in our opinion ample to sustain the verdict of the jury and tó support the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered.

No briefs have been filed in behalf of appellant, or by the state.

The judgment of convictibn from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.

’ Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 329, 27 Ala. App. 491, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bufford-v-state-alactapp-1937.