Henderson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Henderson v. State

137 Ala. 83

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

TYSON, J.-

'Since the decision in Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. 5, it has been uniformly held that the judgment of a trial court can not be reversed for its: refusal to give a charge asked, unless it appears that it was asked in writing as the statute, ('Code, § 3328), requires. This is upon the familiar principle that, all reasonable intendments must be indulged to support the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, and that unless error is affirmatively shown by the record, no reversal can be had.

[85] Tlie several charges refused, to defendant are not shown to have been in writing. This, of itself, justified their refusal, and we can not consider them. — Wheless v. Rhodes, 70 Ala. 419; Ricketts v. Birmingham St. Railway Co., 85 Ala. 600; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76; Bellinger v. State, 92 Ala. 86; Foxworth v. Brown, 114 Ala. 299.

The charge given at the. request of the1 solicitor is not shown not to have been in writing. Applying the same rule of presumption, we are constrained to bold that it was requested in writing, the contrary not affirmatively appearing, 14 properly hypothesized the facts and asserted a correct proposition of law.— Woodbury v. State, 69 Ala. 242; Sandy v. State, 60 Ala. 58.

Affirmed.

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

TYSON, J.-

'Since the decision in Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. 5, it has been uniformly held that the judgment of a trial court can not be reversed for its: refusal to give a charge asked, unless it appears that it was asked in writing as the statute, ('Code, § 3328), requires. This is upon the familiar principle that, all reasonable intendments must be indulged to support the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, and that unless error is affirmatively shown by the record, no reversal can be had.

[85] Tlie several charges refused, to defendant are not shown to have been in writing. This, of itself, justified their refusal, and we can not consider them. — Wheless v. Rhodes, 70 Ala. 419; Ricketts v. Birmingham St. Railway Co., 85 Ala. 600; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76; Bellinger v. State, 92 Ala. 86; Foxworth v. Brown, 114 Ala. 299.

The charge given at the. request of the1 solicitor is not shown not to have been in writing. Applying the same rule of presumption, we are constrained to bold that it was requested in writing, the contrary not affirmatively appearing, 14 properly hypothesized the facts and asserted a correct proposition of law.— Woodbury v. State, 69 Ala. 242; Sandy v. State, 60 Ala. 58.

Affirmed.

Henderson v. State, 137 Ala. 83 (Ala. 1902).

Pincite

137 Ala. 83 (Henderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related