Frazier v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Frazier v. State

64 So. 162, 9 Ala. App. 50, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 120

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 So. 162 (Frazier 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

Frazier v. State, 64 So. 162, 9 Ala. App. 50, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 120 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J. —

The record in this case shows that the defendant ivas indicted, tried, and found guilty by a jury of having concealed stolen goods, alleged in the indictment to be the property of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company.

[51]*51It is urged by counsel for defendant in brief filed that tbe evidence set out in the bill of exceptions fails to show a larceny of tbe property, or ownership as alleged, and that on the ruling in the case of Perry v. State, 155 Ala. 93, 46 South. 470, it was error to permit the witness Adams, the yardmaster of the railroad company, to testify that the goods checked “short” in the car. We do not see how we can review any of these questions here, as the bill of exceptions shows no objection to any testimony offered, and no exception to have been reserved to the court’s ruling on the evidence or any other matter. If the general charge, or any other charge, ivas requested by the state or defendant, it is not shown by any part of the transcript. The proceedings shown by the record proper are regular and contain no error, and nothing is presented for review of this court in such a condition of the record and bill of exceptions as would require a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J. —

The record in this case shows that the defendant ivas indicted, tried, and found guilty by a jury of having concealed stolen goods, alleged in the indictment to be the property of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company.

[51]*51It is urged by counsel for defendant in brief filed that tbe evidence set out in the bill of exceptions fails to show a larceny of tbe property, or ownership as alleged, and that on the ruling in the case of Perry v. State, 155 Ala. 93, 46 South. 470, it was error to permit the witness Adams, the yardmaster of the railroad company, to testify that the goods checked “short” in the car. We do not see how we can review any of these questions here, as the bill of exceptions shows no objection to any testimony offered, and no exception to have been reserved to the court’s ruling on the evidence or any other matter. If the general charge, or any other charge, ivas requested by the state or defendant, it is not shown by any part of the transcript. The proceedings shown by the record proper are regular and contain no error, and nothing is presented for review of this court in such a condition of the record and bill of exceptions as would require a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 162, 9 Ala. App. 50, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-state-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack