Hester v. State

73 So. 757, 15 Ala. App. 435, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 216
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 1916·Published

Opinion

EVANS, J.

This appeal is on the record proper without a bill of exceptions. The written charges, given and refused, are set out in the transcript as provided by statute (Acts 1915, p. 815), but not the mero motu charge of the court.

*436 It has been repeatedly held that this court cannot review the charges refused to appellant in the absence of a bill of exceptions and the oral charge of the court. — Mitchell’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 104, 71 South. 982; Clay’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 664, 71 South. 982; Clark’s Case, 14 Ala. 633, 72 South. 291; Dorough’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208.

Examination of the record shows the judgment entry and. the proceedings had in support thereof to be in all things regular, and the judgment below is accordingly, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Hester v. State, 73 So. 757, 15 Ala. App. 435, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 216 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

73 So. 757 (Hester v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. B. Bank at Huntsville
14 Ala. 633 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1848)
Mitchell v. State
71 So. 982 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Dorough v. State
72 So. 208 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Clark v. State
72 So. 291 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Clay v. State
14 Ala. App. 664 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)