Ex parte Owens

52 Ala. 473
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided June 15, 1875·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record does not disclose a discontinuance of the prosecution. When a cause civil or criminal is regularly introduced into a court of record, although continuances from term to term are not regularly entered as they ought to be, and a failure to enter them is a gross dereliction of clerical duty, they are presumed, unless the record discloses some act of the party plaintiff, by which a chasm in the proceedings is produced. Drinkard v. The State, 20 Ala. 9; 2 Brick. Dig. 369, § 112.

The failure of the presiding judge to sign the minutes of the court does not affect the validity of the record. Bartlett & Waring v. Lang, 2 Ala. 61.

The application for mandamus is denied.

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

Ex parte Owens, 52 Ala. 473 (Ala. 1875).

52 Ala. 473 (Ex parte Owens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Mobile v. Board of Revenue and Road Com'rs
121 So. 49 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Roszell v. State
98 So. 35 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)
Lewis v. Martin
98 So. 635 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1923)
Raine v. State
143 Tenn. 168 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1920)
Wright v. State
67 So. 798 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Smith v. State
43 So. 129 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Benson v. State
91 Ala. 86 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)