Raymond v. Pointer

Supreme Court of Alabama

Raymond v. Pointer

133 So. 260, 222 Ala. 518, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 266

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 19, 1931

Docket7 Div. 26.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 133 So. 260 (Raymond v. Pointer) 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

Raymond v. Pointer, 133 So. 260, 222 Ala. 518, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 266 (Ala. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

The report of the case on former appeal (Raymond v. Pointer, 220 Ala. 593, 127 So. 153) discloses the nature of the suit, but no question there decided is now presented.

The sole assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to permit defendant’s witness Sizemore to testify for the reason that the rule had been invoked, and the witness had been present in the courtroom during the progress of the trial. Whether the evidence sought to be secured from this witness was merely cumulative is not made to appear, nor are the circumstances disclosed. This was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, and to work a reversal there must appear an abuse of this discretion. State v. Brookshire, 2 Ala. 303; Sloss-Sheffield Co. v. Smith (Ala. Sup.) 40 So. 91; McClellan v. State, 117 Ala. 140, 23 So. 653. The record discloses no such abuse.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

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

GARDNER, J.

The report of the case on former appeal (Raymond v. Pointer, 220 Ala. 593, 127 So. 153) discloses the nature of the suit, but no question there decided is now presented.

The sole assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to permit defendant’s witness Sizemore to testify for the reason that the rule had been invoked, and the witness had been present in the courtroom during the progress of the trial. Whether the evidence sought to be secured from this witness was merely cumulative is not made to appear, nor are the circumstances disclosed. This was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, and to work a reversal there must appear an abuse of this discretion. State v. Brookshire, 2 Ala. 303; Sloss-Sheffield Co. v. Smith (Ala. Sup.) 40 So. 91; McClellan v. State, 117 Ala. 140, 23 So. 653. The record discloses no such abuse.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BOULDIN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 260, 222 Ala. 518, 1931 Ala. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-pointer-ala-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack