Seals v. State

194 So. 687, 239 Ala. 244, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 97
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMarch 14, 1940
Docket8 Div. 41.
StatusPublished

This text of 194 So. 687 (Seals 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
Seals v. State, 194 So. 687, 239 Ala. 244, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 97 (Ala. 1940).

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

The utterances of the Court of Appeals, after remandment to that court, on the question of the right of cross-examination appear, in general, to be sound. No specific ruling is noted on that subject, but the court’s utterances were predicated on a finding of fact, therefore within the rule that this court will not on certiorari review the Court of Appeals, on a finding of fact or the application of the law to the facts.

The sustention of the State’s objection to the defendant’s questions to defendant’s witness, Paul Rowe, “You did not steal that cattle did you?” “Did you ever conspire with anybody to help them steal the cows?” could well be rested on the ground that they were leading and called for a conclusion within the province of the jury.

The writ will be denied. Ex parte Hill (City of Tuscaloosa v. Hill), 194 Ala. 559, 69 So. 598.

' ANDERSON, C. J„ and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

City of Tuscaloosa v. Hill
69 So. 598 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 So. 687, 239 Ala. 244, 1940 Ala. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seals-v-state-ala-1940.