Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa

72 So. 576, 15 Ala. App. 28, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 96

DecidedAugust 1, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 72 So. 576 (Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, 72 So. 576, 15 Ala. App. 28, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 96 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

The assignments of error predicated upon the appellant’s insistence that the ordinance of the municipality offered in evidence, and for a violation of which the defendant was tried and convicted, was not a valid ordinance in force at the time of the commission of the alleged offense was disposed of in the case of Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, 12 Ala. App. 599, 67 South. 778, adversely to the appellant’s contention.

*29 The question asked the witness Sullivan by counsel for the city on cross-examination was within the discretion of the trial court. It was proper, in eliciting an answer having a tendency to sustain the credit of the city’s witness Giles, that the defendant was seeking to impeach by this witness. — Holley v. State, 105 Ala. 100, 17 South. 102. The purpose of the question was within the range of testing the accuracy of the memory of the witness, and this is permissible and in the discretion of the court, even to the extent of asking irrelevant questions (Cox v. State, 162 Ala. 66, 50 South. 398) that would reflect on the accuracy or truth of the statement of the witness on his examination in chief. —Savage v. State, 174 Ala. 94, 57 South. 469. We do not think the court abused its discretion or transcended the proper limits of cross-examination in allowing the question.

Other matters presented are -not insisted upon in such a way as to require discussion. — W. U. Tel. Co. v. Emerson, et al., 14 Ala. App. 247, 69 South. 335; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Holland, 173 Ala. 675, 55 South. 1001.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

The assignments of error predicated upon the appellant’s insistence that the ordinance of the municipality offered in evidence, and for a violation of which the defendant was tried and convicted, was not a valid ordinance in force at the time of the commission of the alleged offense was disposed of in the case of Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, 12 Ala. App. 599, 67 South. 778, adversely to the appellant’s contention.

*29 The question asked the witness Sullivan by counsel for the city on cross-examination was within the discretion of the trial court. It was proper, in eliciting an answer having a tendency to sustain the credit of the city’s witness Giles, that the defendant was seeking to impeach by this witness. — Holley v. State, 105 Ala. 100, 17 South. 102. The purpose of the question was within the range of testing the accuracy of the memory of the witness, and this is permissible and in the discretion of the court, even to the extent of asking irrelevant questions (Cox v. State, 162 Ala. 66, 50 South. 398) that would reflect on the accuracy or truth of the statement of the witness on his examination in chief. —Savage v. State, 174 Ala. 94, 57 South. 469. We do not think the court abused its discretion or transcended the proper limits of cross-examination in allowing the question.

Other matters presented are -not insisted upon in such a way as to require discussion. — W. U. Tel. Co. v. Emerson, et al., 14 Ala. App. 247, 69 South. 335; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Holland, 173 Ala. 675, 55 South. 1001.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 576, 15 Ala. App. 28, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-city-of-tuscaloosa-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack