House v. State
139 Ala. 132
Opinion
The action of the court in refusing to continue the case was proper.
There was no error in sustaining the objection to the question propounded by defendant to his witness Jim Hazle. It clearly called for illegal testimony.
It is sufficient to say of charges 2 and 3 refused to defendant, that they were vicious in asserting, on the facts postulated, his right to carry the pistol concealed. — § 4420 of the Code; Baker v. State, 126 Ala. 83.
There was, of course, no error in refusing the affirmative charge requested by defendant.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
House v. State, 139 Ala. 132 (Ala. 1903).
139 Ala. 132 (House v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Godfrey v. State
383 So. 2d 575 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1980)
Hite v. State
213 So. 2d 229 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)
Powell v. State
100 So. 2d 38 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1957)
Gilbert v. State
57 So. 127 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)
Murph v. State
45 So. 208 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Stallworth v. State
41 So. 184 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)