Ex Parte Thomas

93 So. 521, 207 Ala. 662, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 220

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals in the case of Thomas v. State, 93 South. 237.

The motion for new trial was based upon the insistence that the verdict was contrary t(j the evidence, and that the proof was insufficient to support the verdict. As to this motion the bill of exceptions shows no exception to any ruling thereon, nor does-it contain any reference thereto, and was properly not considered (Powell v. Folmar [Ala. Sup.] 78 South. 47); 1 but no necessity arose in this case for the introduction of evidence upon motion for new trial, or that the bill of exceptions (which recites it contains all the evidence in the case) should so-recite that such was done; the presumption being that the evidence upon the trial is in the breast of the court. Nat Pyrite, v. Williams, 206 Ala. 4, 89 South. 291.

The writ will be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. X, and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

1 201 Ala. 271.