Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Ala. App. 538

93 So 259

Whale v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided May 30, 1922

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1922-05-30

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1938

5 state decisions

Relies on 16 Ala. App. 81 - Richardson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-05-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 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.

¶2 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.

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

¶4 Affirmed.

/18/alaapp/538 · .json · Public domain