Hemingway v. Garth

51 Ala. 530
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 51 Ala. 530 (Hemingway v. Garth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hemingway v. Garth, 51 Ala. 530 (Ala. 1874).

Opinion

BRICKELL, J.

To support the plaintiff’s action, it was necessary to give evidence of an attachment, affidavit, and bond, corresponding substantially with the averments of the complaint. The affidavit was made before a justice of the peace, and the attachment was returnable before him. The loss of the original having been proved, the plaintiff was entitled to give secondary evidence of them. Ware v. Robertson, 18 Ala. 105; Bullock v. Ogburn, 13 Ala. 346.

2, 3. In the case of Campbell v. State (23 Ala. 76), this [532]*532court, after a careful examination of the authorities, arrived at the. conclusion, that it is competent for a party to inquire of his own witness whether he had not made statements contradictory of, or inconsistent with, the evidence he has given on the trial. It is not an objection to such evidence, that it has a tendency to impeach the witness. Such is the tendency of other evidence establishing the facts which the testimony of the witness may have tended to disprove, yet it is the clear legal right of the party to introduce such evidence. The question propounded to the witness by the defendant was not subject to the objection interposed, and the court erred in sustaining it. It was, however, error without injury, as the bill of exceptions discloses that the witness answered the question negatively, and his answer went to the jury. No evidence contradictory of the witness’ answer was offered.

4. The court gave the written charge requested by the appellant, not qualifying it otherwise than by the remark to the jury, that it was to be taken in connection with the general charge. When the court gives the j ury a general charge, and additional charges are given at the request of either party, it is certainly true that the general and special charges are to be considered in connection; and it is proper for the court so to state, lest the jury should be misled. No injury can result to either party by the instruction. Scott v. State, 37 Ala. 117.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Jordan v. City of Huntsville
650 So. 2d 591 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Hodges v. City of Hoover
647 So. 2d 39 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Barnes v. State
361 So. 2d 390 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Allen v. State
276 So. 2d 583 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1973)
Hudson v. State
267 So. 2d 494 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1972)
McMillian v. State
106 So. 2d 244 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Jarrell v. State
50 So. 2d 767 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1949)
Alabama Power Co. v. Hall
103 So. 867 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Duncan v. State
101 So. 472 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
State v. Sills
194 P. 580 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)
Simpson v. E. C. Payne Lumber Co.
82 So. 649 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)
Hickman v. State
67 So. 775 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Pelham v. Chattahoochie Grocery Co.
47 So. 172 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. v. Hays
110 F. 496 (Ninth Circuit, 1901)
Hays v. Tacoma Ry. & Power Co.
106 F. 48 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington, 1900)
Swift & Co. v. Short
92 F. 567 (Eighth Circuit, 1899)
Thomas v. State
117 Ala. 178 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1897)
George v. Triplett
63 N.W. 891 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1895)
Russell v. Wright
98 Ala. 652 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1893)
Selover v. Bryant
21 L.R.A. 418 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Ala. 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemingway-v-garth-ala-1874.