Morgan v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Morgan v. State

154 So. 827, 26 Ala. App. 145, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 67

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 1934

Docket6 Div. 539.

StatusPublished

This text of 154 So. 827 (Morgan 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

Morgan v. State, 154 So. 827, 26 Ala. App. 145, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 67 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

*146 BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This prosecution originated,- as the statute provides, upon the affidavit of the alleged injured woman, Edna Doss, wherein it was averred that she is a single woman and is pregnant with a bastard child, and that William Morgan is the father of said child, etc.

Having been bound over upon said charge, the trial was had in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and there resulted in his conviction, the verdict of the jury being: “We the jury find the defendant guilty of 'being the real father of this child.” Judgment was pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken.

There is no bill of exceptions; therefore, the action of the court in refusing to defendant certain special written charges and in overruling his motion for a new trial cannot be considered. The appeal being upon the record proper only, but one question is here presented, i. e. the regularity of the proceedings in the courts below, as shown by the record before us. We have, as the law requires, examined the record and find it regular in all respects. There being no error apparent, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*146 BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

This prosecution originated,- as the statute provides, upon the affidavit of the alleged injured woman, Edna Doss, wherein it was averred that she is a single woman and is pregnant with a bastard child, and that William Morgan is the father of said child, etc.

Having been bound over upon said charge, the trial was had in the circuit court of Jefferson county, and there resulted in his conviction, the verdict of the jury being: “We the jury find the defendant guilty of 'being the real father of this child.” Judgment was pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken.

There is no bill of exceptions; therefore, the action of the court in refusing to defendant certain special written charges and in overruling his motion for a new trial cannot be considered. The appeal being upon the record proper only, but one question is here presented, i. e. the regularity of the proceedings in the courts below, as shown by the record before us. We have, as the law requires, examined the record and find it regular in all respects. There being no error apparent, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 So. 827, 26 Ala. App. 145, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-state-alactapp-1934.