Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

150 Ala. 95

Millner v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 2, 1907

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1907-03-02

Heard before Hon. G-. K. Miller. Will Millner was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol, and he appeals. Defendant was indicted for carrying* a pistol concealed. The appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the court trying the defendant without a jury.

Relies on Woodrow v. Hawving · First National Bank v. Chaffin · Ward v. Shirley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1907-03-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1933

12 state decisions

1001907191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCLELLAN, J.

¶1The appellant was convicted of the offense of carrying a. concealed pistol, upon the trial by the judge of the city court'without jury. His insistence is that the evidence adduced did not warrant the judgment rendered.

¶2While it is by statute made the duty of this court to review, without favorable presumption, the conclusions and judgments of the lower court upon the evidence, this court has repeatedly declared that such conclusions and judgments, if based' upon the evidence delivered ore ten us, must be given the force and effect of a finding by a jury, and, unless plainly erroneous, will not be disturbed; the reason being that upon the record here this court is without the benefit of the presence of the witnesses and the opportunity to weigh their testimony in connection with the manner' and course of delivery thereof by them.Woodrow v. Hawving, 105 Ala. 240, 16 South. 720; Ward v. Shirley, 131 Ala. 568, 32 South. 489; Little v. Smith, 119 Ala. 461, 24 South. 427; First Nat. Bank v. Chaffin, 118 Ala. 246, 24 South. 80. In the case at bar we cannot say that the conclusions of the judge from the evidence adduced ore tenus before him is plainly erroneous.; hence the judgment must be affirmed.

¶3Affirmed.

*97Haralson, Dowdell, Anderson, and Denson, JJ., concur.
/150/ala/95 · .json · Public domain