Canto v. State

73 So. 826, 15 Ala. App. 480, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 224

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 19, 1916
• Status: Published

Opinion

EVANS, J.

Appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to a term of 10 years’ imprisonment. The appeal is upon the record proper without a bill of exceptions.

(1) Error cannot be predicated upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment; it is a matter of discretion with the trial court whether it will put the defendant to his demurrer or plea in abatement, as the case may be. — Amos Smith’s Case, infra, 73 South. 824; Bryant’s Case, 79 Ala. 724; Mosely’s Case, 1 Ala. App. 108, 56 South. 35; Josiah Clark’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291.

(2) The statute requires the mero motu charge given by the trial court to be set out in the transcript. — Acts 1915, p. 815. This does not appear. In the absence of the mero motu charge, and of a bill of exceptions, this court cannot review the written requests to charge refused to appellant. — Mitchell’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982; Clay’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 665, 71 South. 982; Clark’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; Borough’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208.

Aside from these questions, the record proper discloses .no error. The judgment entry and proceedings had in support thereof appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.