Millner v. State

43 So. 194, 150 Ala. 95, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 326
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 2, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 43 So. 194 (Millner 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.

Bluebook
Millner v. State, 43 So. 194, 150 Ala. 95, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 326 (Ala. 1907).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

The appellant was convicted of the offense of carrying a. concealed pistol, upon the trial by the judge of the city court'without jury. His insistence is that the evidence adduced did not warrant the judgment rendered.

While it is by statute made the duty of this court to review, without favorable presumption, the conclusions and judgments of the lower court upon the evidence, this court has repeatedly declared that such conclusions and judgments, if based' upon the evidence delivered ore ten us, must be given the force and effect of a finding by a jury, and, unless plainly erroneous, will not be disturbed; the reason being that upon the record here this court is without the benefit of the presence of the witnesses and the opportunity to weigh their testimony in connection with the manner' and course of delivery thereof by them.—Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240, 16 South. 720; Ward v. Shirley, 131 Ala. 568, 32 South. 489; Little v. Smith, 119 Ala. 461, 24 South. 427; First Nat. Bank v. Chaffin, 118 Ala. 246, 24 South. 80. In the case at bar we cannot say that the conclusions of the judge from the evidence adduced ore tenus before him is plainly erroneous.; hence the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

[97]*97Haralson, Dowdell, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hollimon v. McGregor
149 So. 71 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)
Summers v. State
100 So. 456 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Weil v. Centerfit
78 So. 885 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Darrow v. Darrow
78 So. 383 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Stedham v. Robertson
71 So. 62 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Stephenson v. Jebeles & Colias Confectionery Co.
65 So. 314 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Smith v. Shadix
59 So. 706 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Carson v. State
59 So. 719 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Glenn Refining Co. v. Webster
59 So. 717 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Wells v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
59 So. 343 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Hall v. Clayton
59 So. 235 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)
Winter-Loeb Grocery Co. v. Mutual Warehouse Co.
58 So. 807 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 So. 194, 150 Ala. 95, 1907 Ala. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millner-v-state-ala-1907.