Bailey v. State
| Decision Date | 25 July 1895 |
| Parties | BAILEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Lee county; J. W. Foster, Judge.
Frank Bailey was indicted for an assault with an intent to murder George Rowell, and, upon being found guilty, was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. From the judgment of conviction, he appeals. Reversed.
The evidence for the state, as shown by the bill of exceptions tended to show that while George Rowell, in company with two other persons, was coming from the town of Loachapoka, to his home, the defendant and his brother overtook them, and, when within a short distance of George Rowell, the defendant said to him, "You went to Loachapoka to-day to get a warrant for me," and immediately shot the said George Rowell in the back with a shotgun. It was also shown that the defendant and George Rowell had had a previous difficulty on the same day. The defendant's testimony tended to show that upon he and his brother's meeting George Rowell, with two other men, George Rowell said to the defendant, "You went to Loachapoka to get a warrant for me," to which the defendant replied, "Yes, I did; and you went to Loachapoka to get a warrant for me," and thereupon Rowell called the defendant a liar, and immediately struck him over the head with a stick, and that, upon the said George Rowell's assaulting the defendant again with the stick, he (the defendant) retreated 50 yards, and when Rowell was within a few feet of him, with his stick drawn as if to strike, the defendant raised his gun and shot him. The solicitor for the state asked a witness for the defendant, on cross-examination, the following question: "Did not the defendant know that day, and before the shooting, that George Rowell had gone to Loachapoka to get a warrant for him?" The defendant objected to this question on the grounds that it was illegal, irrelevant, and immaterial, and that its answer would be a conclusion of the witness. The court overruled the said objection, allowed the question to be asked, and to this ruling of the court the defendant duly excepted. Upon the witness answering, "He did," the defendant moved to exclude said answer upon the same grounds and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion. The defendant then asked the witness "if he knew whether or not George Rowell procured a warrant against the defendant." To this question the state objected, the court sustained its objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant then offered to show that he had been informed before the shooting that George Rowell had not procured a warrant against him, by asking a witness "Whether or not the defendant made any inquiry about the said warrant before a justice of the peace at Loachapoka and, if yea, what information did he receive?" To each of these questions the court sustained the objections interposed by the state, and the defendant separately excepted to such rulings of the court. These rulings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuff v. State
...... intention). Some of these cases are: Peake v. Stout, . 8 Ala. 647; Whetstone v. Bank, 9 Ala. 875, 886;. Clement v. Cureton, 36 Ala. 120, 121-24; Sternau. v. Marx, 58 Ala. 608; Adams v. Thornton, 82. Ala. 260, 263, 3 So. 20; Bailey v. State, 107 Ala. 151, 18 So. 234; Gunter v. State, 111 Ala. 23, 20. So. 632, 56 Am.St.Rep. 17. Other cases in this line are. collected in Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., § 1966, and notes. . . A study. of the decisions in which the rule of exclusion was developed. indicates ......
-
West Pratt Coal Co. v. Andrews
...court properly excluded the answer of witness Tadlock to the question: "He [plaintiff] knew the way the trestle was shaky?" Bailey's Case, 107 Ala. 151, 18 So. 234; Cen. of Ga. Ry. v. Martin, 138 Ala. 531, 36 So. Braham's Case, 143 Ala. 28, 38 So. 919; Liner's Case, 124 Ala. 1, 27 So. 436. ......
-
Braham v. State
...... time the questions were asked no proof of the fact had been. offered. Further, as to the first question, it also involves. an inquiry as to knowledge on the part of others. It has been. held by this court that the cognition of another is not a. fact of which a witness may testify. Bailey's Case, 107. Ala. 151, 18 So. 234. Dr. Hagler, as an expert, having. testified in answer to a hypothetical question that under the. hypothesis stated he would say the person was of unsound. mind, it was proper on cross-examination for the state to. test the accracy of his information as to the ......
-
Poellnitz v. State
...called for testimony as to the mental operations of another, and the State's timely objection was properly sustained. Bailey v. State, 107 Ala. 151, 18 So. 234; Spurlock v. State, 17 Ala.App. 109, 82 So. 557; Whigham v. State, 20 Ala.App. 129, 101 So. 98; Hembree v. State, 20 Ala.App. 181, ......