State v. Franklin

Alabama Court of Appeals

State v. Franklin

65 So. 421, 11 Ala. App. 230, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 53

DecidedMay 12, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 65 So. 421 (State v. Franklin) 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

State v. Franklin, 65 So. 421, 11 Ala. App. 230, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 53 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

Under the rule of law applicable to a review of the proceedings of the primary tribunal in a case of this nature, based upon the consideration that, because of the superior opportunity possessed by it of personal observation of the witnesses, it should clearly appear that the primary court has erred in its judgment, or a revisory court should abstain from interference, we cannot say, after a careful consideration of the testimony presented by this record, that the conclusion of the primary court is erroneous.— State v. Cole, 5 Ala. App. 286, 59 South. 681.

We do not deem it necessary to enter into a discussion of the evidence. The case is yet to be tried, and we refrain from making any remarks on the evidence that might be taken as an expression of opinion on the tendencies of the evidence as affecting the merits of the issues to be involved on the trial.

The order of the judge of the city court of Birmingham, admitting the petitioner to bail, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J.

Under the rule of law applicable to a review of the proceedings of the primary tribunal in a case of this nature, based upon the consideration that, because of the superior opportunity possessed by it of personal observation of the witnesses, it should clearly appear that the primary court has erred in its judgment, or a revisory court should abstain from interference, we cannot say, after a careful consideration of the testimony presented by this record, that the conclusion of the primary court is erroneous.— State v. Cole, 5 Ala. App. 286, 59 South. 681.

We do not deem it necessary to enter into a discussion of the evidence. The case is yet to be tried, and we refrain from making any remarks on the evidence that might be taken as an expression of opinion on the tendencies of the evidence as affecting the merits of the issues to be involved on the trial.

The order of the judge of the city court of Birmingham, admitting the petitioner to bail, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 So. 421, 11 Ala. App. 230, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-franklin-alactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack