Murphy v. Coleman

Alabama Court of Appeals

Murphy v. Coleman

64 So. 185, 9 Ala. App. 625, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 359

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 64 So. 185 (Murphy v. Coleman) 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

Murphy v. Coleman, 64 So. 185, 9 Ala. App. 625, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 359 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, P. J. —

One who would justify, on the ground of self-defense, an assault and battery committed by him upon another, must show that he acted under a real or reasonably apparent necessity of defending himself, and that he used no more force than was reasonably necessary or unavoidable in the situation which confronted him. — Thomason v. Gray, 82 Ala. 291, 3 South. 38; Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala. 639, 45 South. 641, 16 Ann. Cas. 305; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Coleman (Sup.) 61 South. 890. The demurrer to defendant’s plea 4 pointed out wherein it failed to show a justification of the assault and battery confessed by it, and that demurrer was properly sustained.

It is plain that the plaintiff in bringing his action for an alleged wrongful assault and battery committed upon him by the defendant did not assume the burden of proving that the defendant was free from fault in the matter complained of. Perhaps it was the intention of counsel in drafting written charges 2 and 3 requested for the defendant to state that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at fault in bringing on the difficulty (Brown v. State, 83 Ala. 33, 3 South. 857, 3 Am. St. Rep. 685; Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala. 639, 45 South. 641, 16 Ann. Cas. 305) ; but neither of these charges stated such a proposition. There was no error in refusing to give them as they were framed.

Affirmed.

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

WALKER, P. J. —

One who would justify, on the ground of self-defense, an assault and battery committed by him upon another, must show that he acted under a real or reasonably apparent necessity of defending himself, and that he used no more force than was reasonably necessary or unavoidable in the situation which confronted him. — Thomason v. Gray, 82 Ala. 291, 3 South. 38; Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala. 639, 45 South. 641, 16 Ann. Cas. 305; Birmingham Ry., Light & Power Co. v. Coleman (Sup.) 61 South. 890. The demurrer to defendant’s plea 4 pointed out wherein it failed to show a justification of the assault and battery confessed by it, and that demurrer was properly sustained.

It is plain that the plaintiff in bringing his action for an alleged wrongful assault and battery committed upon him by the defendant did not assume the burden of proving that the defendant was free from fault in the matter complained of. Perhaps it was the intention of counsel in drafting written charges 2 and 3 requested for the defendant to state that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was at fault in bringing on the difficulty (Brown v. State, 83 Ala. 33, 3 South. 857, 3 Am. St. Rep. 685; Morris v. McClellan, 154 Ala. 639, 45 South. 641, 16 Ann. Cas. 305) ; but neither of these charges stated such a proposition. There was no error in refusing to give them as they were framed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 So. 185, 9 Ala. App. 625, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-coleman-alactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack