Lane v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lane v. State

106 So. 394, 21 Ala. App. 183, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 311

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 1925

Docket1 Div. 618.

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 394 (Lane v. State) 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. State, 106 So. 394, 21 Ala. App. 183, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 311 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

From a judgment of conviction for malicious mischief the defendant appeals. The indictment charged that Frank Lane unlawfully, wantonly, or maliciously destroyed or injured a large number of household articles, all named and valued in the indictment, and the jury assessed a fine against him of $436.40. Failing to pay the fine and cost, the court duly and legally sentenced the defendant to hard labor for the county for the period of time fixed by law.

The transcript contains numerous refused charges, but, in the absence of the court’s oral charge and a bill of exceptions, these refused charges cannot be considered.

The appeal is upon the record, which is without error. The judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

From a judgment of conviction for malicious mischief the defendant appeals. The indictment charged that Frank Lane unlawfully, wantonly, or maliciously destroyed or injured a large number of household articles, all named and valued in the indictment, and the jury assessed a fine against him of $436.40. Failing to pay the fine and cost, the court duly and legally sentenced the defendant to hard labor for the county for the period of time fixed by law.

The transcript contains numerous refused charges, but, in the absence of the court’s oral charge and a bill of exceptions, these refused charges cannot be considered.

The appeal is upon the record, which is without error. The judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 394, 21 Ala. App. 183, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lane-v-state-alactapp-1925.