Clack v. State

161 So. 265, 26 Ala. App. 417, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 113

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 7, 1935·No. 5 Div. 962.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment in the case is in all things regular and properly charges the offense of which the defendant was convicted.

*266 The bill of exceptions fails to disclose any exceptions of merit.

Refused charge 1, being the only charge refused to defendant, is elliptical, and for that reason was properly refused.

We And no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment in the case is in all things regular and properly charges the offense of which the defendant was convicted.

*266 The bill of exceptions fails to disclose any exceptions of merit.

Refused charge 1, being the only charge refused to defendant, is elliptical, and for that reason was properly refused.

We And no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Clack v. State, 161 So. 265, 26 Ala. App. 417, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 113 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

161 So. 265 (Clack v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.