North v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

North v. State

89 So. 832, 18 Ala. App. 161, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 135

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 1921

Docket6 Div. 844.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 So. 832 (North 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

North v. State, 89 So. 832, 18 Ala. App. 161, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 135 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of grand larceny, the theft of an automobile, and sentenced to hard labor for the county for 12 months. Only two questions are presented for our consideration, in the introduction of the testimony. The two questions relate to the introduction by the state of a bill of sale and invoice for the automobile, their introduction being limited to showing the motor number on the car in question. In each instance the bill of exceptions recites that search has been made for the bill of sale and invoice, but they cannot be found, and hence neither is set out. The contents of these papers not being disclosed, we are unable to declare that the trial court was in error in permitting their introduction. We have given careful consideration to the entire record and find no reversible error. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of grand larceny, the theft of an automobile, and sentenced to hard labor for the county for 12 months. Only two questions are presented for our consideration, in the introduction of the testimony. The two questions relate to the introduction by the state of a bill of sale and invoice for the automobile, their introduction being limited to showing the motor number on the car in question. In each instance the bill of exceptions recites that search has been made for the bill of sale and invoice, but they cannot be found, and hence neither is set out. The contents of these papers not being disclosed, we are unable to declare that the trial court was in error in permitting their introduction. We have given careful consideration to the entire record and find no reversible error. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 832, 18 Ala. App. 161, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-v-state-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack