House v. State
This text of 139 Ala. 132 (House v. State) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
139 Ala. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/house-v-state-ala-1903.