McDonald v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McDonald v. State

81 So. 894, 17 Ala. App. 695

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1919

Docket8 Div. 530.

StatusPublished

This text of 81 So. 894 (McDonald 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

McDonald v. State, 81 So. 894, 17 Ala. App. 695 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There is no brief filed for the appellant in this cause, but his insistence is set forth in the motion for a new trial, in which he assigns four grounds: (1) That the verdict was contrary to the evidence; (2) that there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict; (3) because the court refused to give the affirmative charge as requested by the defendant; and (4) that there was not sufficient evidence to support the judgment. We have carefully examined the evidence in this case, and are of the opinion that it was a question for the jury under the facts, and that the entire case was submitted to the jury under a full, fair, and impartial charge from the trial court. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is in all things affirmed. Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

There is no brief filed for the appellant in this cause, but his insistence is set forth in the motion for a new trial, in which he assigns four grounds: (1) That the verdict was contrary to the evidence; (2) that there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict; (3) because the court refused to give the affirmative charge as requested by the defendant; and (4) that there was not sufficient evidence to support the judgment. We have carefully examined the evidence in this case, and are of the opinion that it was a question for the jury under the facts, and that the entire case was submitted to the jury under a full, fair, and impartial charge from the trial court. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is in all things affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 So. 894, 17 Ala. App. 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-alactapp-1919.