Culpepper v. State
129 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 625
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Culpepper v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 Ala. App. 104 →
Opinion
The evidence was in conflict, and there is no such preponderance in favor of defendant as would authorize this court to hold that the trial judge committed error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Questions arising on rulings on demurrer are settled against defendant in Williams v. State, 23 Ala. App. 53, 122 So. 460, Dixon v. State, 23 Ala. App. 279, 124 So. 506. and Weaver v. State, 23 Ala. App. 353, 125 So. 800.
There is 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
Culpepper v. State, 129 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 625 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).
129 So. 923 (Culpepper v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Weaver v. State
125 So. 800 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Williams v. State
122 So. 460 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Dixon v. State
124 So. 506 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)