Sharp v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sharp v. State

107 So. 228, 21 Ala. App. 262, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 56

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 1926

Docket7 Div. 158.

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 107 So. 228 (Sharp 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

Sharp v. State, 107 So. 228, 21 Ala. App. 262, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 56 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This prosecution against this appellant originated in the county court of Etowah county; the charge being a violation of the prohibition laws of the state by having whisky in his possession. From a judgment of conviction in the county court, the defendant appealed to the circuit court, was again convicted, and appeals here.

In brief of counsel for appellant it is contended “that the verdict rendered by the jury is contrary to the evidence in the case.” In support of that contention we are cited several authorities, decisions formerly rendered by this court.

The insistence urged is not presented for our consideration, nor is any other question before us on this appeal, except the regularity of the proceedings disclosed by the record proper. The statute makes it the duty of this court to consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions. Section 3258, Code 1923. The record has been examined, and is regular in all things. There was not a single exception re *263 served to the rulings of the court pending the entire trial. The affirmative charge was not requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial. No adverse ruling of the court appears ; we therefore have nothing before us to decide. The jurisdiction of this court in all cases appealed here is appellate only, and review by this court is limited to those matters u,ppn which action or ruling at nisi prius was invoked. Woodson v. State, 54 So. 191, 170 Ala. 87. There being no question presented for our consideration, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This prosecution against this appellant originated in the county court of Etowah county; the charge being a violation of the prohibition laws of the state by having whisky in his possession. From a judgment of conviction in the county court, the defendant appealed to the circuit court, was again convicted, and appeals here.

In brief of counsel for appellant it is contended “that the verdict rendered by the jury is contrary to the evidence in the case.” In support of that contention we are cited several authorities, decisions formerly rendered by this court.

The insistence urged is not presented for our consideration, nor is any other question before us on this appeal, except the regularity of the proceedings disclosed by the record proper. The statute makes it the duty of this court to consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions. Section 3258, Code 1923. The record has been examined, and is regular in all things. There was not a single exception re *263 served to the rulings of the court pending the entire trial. The affirmative charge was not requested, nor was there a motion for a new trial. No adverse ruling of the court appears ; we therefore have nothing before us to decide. The jurisdiction of this court in all cases appealed here is appellate only, and review by this court is limited to those matters u,ppn which action or ruling at nisi prius was invoked. Woodson v. State, 54 So. 191, 170 Ala. 87. There being no question presented for our consideration, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 228, 21 Ala. App. 262, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack