Chandler v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Chandler v. State

51 So. 318, 165 Ala. 106, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 22

DecidedJanuary 13, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 51 So. 318 (Chandler v. State) 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

Chandler v. State, 51 So. 318, 165 Ala. 106, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 22 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

— Appellant was tried on an affidavit charging him with a violation of the prohibition law in Walker, county. Demurrer was filed, but no ruling of the court on the demurrer appears. There is, of course, nothing to review in this connection.

The solicitor asked the prosecuting witness to state whether he had bought whisky from the defendant at any other time than that to which he had testified a while before in another case. Defendant’s objection, which took the general ground that the question was [107]*107immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, Avas overruled. The ansAver was specific* and, if believed, made out a complete case against the defendant. We are not given to understand hoAv the question asked for evidence Avhich Avas immaterial, irrelevant, or incompetent, and the ruling of the court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and Evans, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

— Appellant was tried on an affidavit charging him with a violation of the prohibition law in Walker, county. Demurrer was filed, but no ruling of the court on the demurrer appears. There is, of course, nothing to review in this connection.

The solicitor asked the prosecuting witness to state whether he had bought whisky from the defendant at any other time than that to which he had testified a while before in another case. Defendant’s objection, which took the general ground that the question was [107]*107immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent, Avas overruled. The ansAver was specific* and, if believed, made out a complete case against the defendant. We are not given to understand hoAv the question asked for evidence Avhich Avas immaterial, irrelevant, or incompetent, and the ruling of the court will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Dowdell, C. J., and Anderson and Evans, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 So. 318, 165 Ala. 106, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-state-ala-1910.