Trainum v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Trainum v. State

167 So. 801, 27 Ala. App. 166, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 84

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided April 21, 1936·No. 1 Div. 213.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

The record proper in this case appears regular in all things.

In the transcript before us there appears a purported bill of exceptions. But it cannot be considered, for the reason that it has never been “authenticated by the signature of the judge presiding at the trial [or otherwise], as the statute requires.” Sharpe v. Hughes et al., 202 Ala. 510, 80 *167 So. 798; Code 1923, § 6432 et seq.; Hendrix v. State, 25 Ala.App. 296, 145 So. 501; Young v. State, 24 Ala.App. 240, 133 So. 750. The fact that the intended bill of exceptions bears the indorsement that it was presented to the trial judge cannot be considered an “authentication.” Ib.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

The record proper in this case appears regular in all things.

In the transcript before us there appears a purported bill of exceptions. But it cannot be considered, for the reason that it has never been “authenticated by the signature of the judge presiding at the trial [or otherwise], as the statute requires.” Sharpe v. Hughes et al., 202 Ala. 510, 80 *167 So. 798; Code 1923, § 6432 et seq.; Hendrix v. State, 25 Ala.App. 296, 145 So. 501; Young v. State, 24 Ala.App. 240, 133 So. 750. The fact that the intended bill of exceptions bears the indorsement that it was presented to the trial judge cannot be considered an “authentication.” Ib.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Trainum v. State, 167 So. 801, 27 Ala. App. 166, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 84 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

167 So. 801 (Trainum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related