Whale v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Whale v. State

93 So. 259, 18 Ala. App. 538, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 204

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 1922

Docket6 Div. 17.

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 259 (Whale 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

Whale v. State, 93 So. 259, 18 Ala. App. 538, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 204 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There is no bill of exceptions, and therefore we cannot consider the action of the court in refusing to give, at the request of defendant, the general affirmative charge.

Insistence is made in brief of counsel that this judgment should be reversed because of a failure of the gourt to have this case reported by the court reporter in compliance with the statute. Acts 1915, p. 816. But it nowhere appears in the record that this was done, or that the omission from the record is not the result of a desire on the part of defendant that it should be omitted. Nor is it made to so appear by motion for a new trial, as was done in Richardson v. State, 16 Ala. App. 81, 75 South. 629.

We find no error in the record, and the-judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

There is no bill of exceptions, and therefore we cannot consider the action of the court in refusing to give, at the request of defendant, the general affirmative charge.

Insistence is made in brief of counsel that this judgment should be reversed because of a failure of the gourt to have this case reported by the court reporter in compliance with the statute. Acts 1915, p. 816. But it nowhere appears in the record that this was done, or that the omission from the record is not the result of a desire on the part of defendant that it should be omitted. Nor is it made to so appear by motion for a new trial, as was done in Richardson v. State, 16 Ala. App. 81, 75 South. 629.

We find no error in the record, and the-judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 259, 18 Ala. App. 538, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whale-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack