Mayor of Birmingham v. McPoland

96 Ala. 363
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

WALKER, J.

When tbe memorandum, to which it is proposed to permit a witness to refer for the purpose of refreshing his memory, does not purport to be the original, but a copy, made by some person other than the witness, the correctness of the copy must first be proved before it can be used by the witness as an aid to his memory. — Jaques v. Horton, 76 Ala. 238; Stoudenmire v. Harper, 81 Ala. 242. In the present case, the memorandum proposed to be shown to the witness Eitzhugh was admitted not to be the original, but what purported to be a copy made by one Kendrick. Kendrick was not introduced to prove the correctness of the copy, and it was not proposed to be shown that the witness Eitzhugh knew that the paper offered was a correct copy. The paper was wholly unauthenticated, and the court properly refused to permit the witness to use it for the purpose of refreshing his memory.

Affirmed.

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

Mayor of Birmingham v. McPoland, 96 Ala. 363 (Ala. 1892).

96 Ala. 363 (Mayor of Birmingham v. McPoland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCright v. State
189 So. 2d 581 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1966)