Cornelius v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cornelius v. State

123 So. 94, 23 Ala. App. 200, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 160

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 18, 1929

Docket8 Div. 877.

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 94 (Cornelius 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

Cornelius v. State, 123 So. 94, 23 Ala. App. 200, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 160 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

We are asked in this ease to review the rulings of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the great weight of the evidence. This we cannot do, for the reason that no exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court on this motion.

In the case of Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Courson, 20 Ala. App. 312-316, 101 So. 638, this court was at pains to discuss this ques-court, Bricken, P. J., pointed out the various decisions which had been rendered touching the proper method of presenting questions involving rulings on motions for new trial.

If there ever was any doubt about it, it now seems to be settled that the proper method of presenting rulings on motion for new trial is as follows: The motion, being in writing, is copied in, and becomes a part of, the record proper, and need not again be copied or set out in the bill of exceptions, but the fact that the motion was presented to the trial judge, his ruling thereon, and an exception thereto must appear in the bill of exceptions, otherwise there is nothing here to review. Rials v. State, 20 Ala. App. 228, 101 So. 629; Campbell v. State, 22 Ala. App. 22, 112 So. 901; Ex parte Thomas, 207 Ala. 662, 93 So. 521; Coley v. State, 21 Ala. App. 591, 110 So. 412; Pritchett v. State, 18 Ala. App; 628, 93 So. 341; Windom v. State, 18 Ala. App. 430, 93 So. 79.

We have been moved to again state the above rule, for the reason that many records recently filed have failed of consideration on account of a failure to observe it.

There are no exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court on the motion, and, there being no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMEORD, J.

We are asked in this ease to review the rulings of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the great weight of the evidence. This we cannot do, for the reason that no exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court on this motion.

In the case of Alabama Fuel & Iron Co. v. Courson, 20 Ala. App. 312-316, 101 So. 638, this court was at pains to discuss this ques-court, Bricken, P. J., pointed out the various decisions which had been rendered touching the proper method of presenting questions involving rulings on motions for new trial.

If there ever was any doubt about it, it now seems to be settled that the proper method of presenting rulings on motion for new trial is as follows: The motion, being in writing, is copied in, and becomes a part of, the record proper, and need not again be copied or set out in the bill of exceptions, but the fact that the motion was presented to the trial judge, his ruling thereon, and an exception thereto must appear in the bill of exceptions, otherwise there is nothing here to review. Rials v. State, 20 Ala. App. 228, 101 So. 629; Campbell v. State, 22 Ala. App. 22, 112 So. 901; Ex parte Thomas, 207 Ala. 662, 93 So. 521; Coley v. State, 21 Ala. App. 591, 110 So. 412; Pritchett v. State, 18 Ala. App; 628, 93 So. 341; Windom v. State, 18 Ala. App. 430, 93 So. 79.

We have been moved to again state the above rule, for the reason that many records recently filed have failed of consideration on account of a failure to observe it.

There are no exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court on the motion, and, there being no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 94, 23 Ala. App. 200, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornelius-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack