Trainum v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Trainum v. State

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

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1936

Docket1 Div. 213.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 So. 801 (Trainum 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 801, 27 Ala. App. 166, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trainum-v-state-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack