Swafford v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Swafford v. State

153 So. 924, 26 Ala. App. 693

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 6, 1934·No. 8 Div. 840.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The trial was in all things regular, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The evidence offered on the motion for a new trial was not sufficient to warrant the trial court in setting aside the verdict. The action of the court in overruling the motion was free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The trial was in all things regular, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

Motion for a new trial was made and overruled. The evidence offered on the motion for a new trial was not sufficient to warrant the trial court in setting aside the verdict. The action of the court in overruling the motion was free from error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Swafford v. State, 153 So. 924, 26 Ala. App. 693 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

153 So. 924 (Swafford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.