Williams v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

127 So. 800, 23 Ala. App. 387

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1930

Docket3 Div. 644.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 So. 800 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 127 So. 800, 23 Ala. App. 387 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Refused charges 5, 6, and 12 are fairly and substantially covered by the court’s oral charge.

Refused charges 8 and 9 do not correctly state the law, in that they omit a willfulness in the false swearing of the witnesses named.

Refused charge 10 is argumentative and misleading.

Rulings on admissions of testimony were free from prejudicial error.

We find no prejudicial 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