Feagin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Feagin v. State

61 So. 464, 7 Ala. App. 101, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 26

DecidedFebruary 13, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 61 So. 464 (Feagin 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

Feagin v. State, 61 So. 464, 7 Ala. App. 101, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 26 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKEB, P. J.

The indictment in this case in averring ,the making by the defendant, with the intent to defraud, of a false pretense of the existence at that time of a fact, and that by means of such false pretense he obtained money and other personal property from the party named, sufficiently showed the commission by the defendant of the statutory offense of obtaining property by false pretenses (Code, § 6920), and it was not subject to the demurrer interposed to it. — Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 116, 23 South. 155; Gardner v. State, 4 Ala. App. 131, 58 South. 1001.

The bill of exceptions not showing to the contrary, it may be presumed that the statement of the witness Deens to which the defendant objected after it had been made ivas responsive to a question or questions propounded to the witness which were not objected to. So it is not made to appear that the defendant was entitled to avail himself of that objection at the time it was [104]*104made, as he Avas without the right in such a way to speculate on the answer a witness would make, to a question or questions asked him. — Billingsley v. State, 96 Ala. 129, 11 South. 409; Stowers Furniture Co. v. Brake, 158 Ala. 639, 48 South. 89.

No error is found in the record.

Affirmed.

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

WALKEB, P. J.

The indictment in this case in averring ,the making by the defendant, with the intent to defraud, of a false pretense of the existence at that time of a fact, and that by means of such false pretense he obtained money and other personal property from the party named, sufficiently showed the commission by the defendant of the statutory offense of obtaining property by false pretenses (Code, § 6920), and it was not subject to the demurrer interposed to it. — Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 116, 23 South. 155; Gardner v. State, 4 Ala. App. 131, 58 South. 1001.

The bill of exceptions not showing to the contrary, it may be presumed that the statement of the witness Deens to which the defendant objected after it had been made ivas responsive to a question or questions propounded to the witness which were not objected to. So it is not made to appear that the defendant was entitled to avail himself of that objection at the time it was [104]*104made, as he Avas without the right in such a way to speculate on the answer a witness would make, to a question or questions asked him. — Billingsley v. State, 96 Ala. 129, 11 South. 409; Stowers Furniture Co. v. Brake, 158 Ala. 639, 48 South. 89.

No error is found in the record.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 464, 7 Ala. App. 101, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feagin-v-state-alactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack