Thomas v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thomas v. State

91 Ala. 59

DecidedNovember 15, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 91 Ala. 59 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 91 Ala. 59 (Ala. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

CLOPTON, J.

This 'cause was submitted December 18, 1890. Appellant subsequently moved to set aside the submission, in order to allow him an opportunity to move to correct the bill of exceptions. We will not pass upon the sufficiency óf the showing to set aside the submission for the purpose mentioned. If the bill of exceptions were corrected, by striking out the portions which appellant insists are improperly inserted, and incorporating in lieu thereof the evidence as he states it was given on the trial, it is evident that the testimony, which would be shown by the bill of exceptions as thus corrected, would be of such character as to dis-entitle appellant to the general affirmative charge, the refusal to give which is the only error complained of. Setting aside the submission, and correcting the bill of exceptions, would not avail a reversal of the judgment.

The motion is overruled, and judgment affirmed.

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

CLOPTON, J.

This 'cause was submitted December 18, 1890. Appellant subsequently moved to set aside the submission, in order to allow him an opportunity to move to correct the bill of exceptions. We will not pass upon the sufficiency óf the showing to set aside the submission for the purpose mentioned. If the bill of exceptions were corrected, by striking out the portions which appellant insists are improperly inserted, and incorporating in lieu thereof the evidence as he states it was given on the trial, it is evident that the testimony, which would be shown by the bill of exceptions as thus corrected, would be of such character as to dis-entitle appellant to the general affirmative charge, the refusal to give which is the only error complained of. Setting aside the submission, and correcting the bill of exceptions, would not avail a reversal of the judgment.

The motion is overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 Ala. 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-ala-1890.