Billingsley v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1892 |
| Citation | 11 So. 409,96 Ala. 126 |
| Parties | BILLINGSLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Cherokee county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.
L. W Billingsley was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted under an indictment charging him with selling liquor without a license. On the trial one Hardin who was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment against the defendant, was examined as a witness for the defendant, and, in response to a question propounded to him by the solicitor, stated that he had taken a drink on that day,-the day of his examination as a witness; and, on then being asked by the solicitor with whom he had taken a drink replied, "With the sheriff, Mr. Blair, only a few minutes ago." To this last statement the defendant objected, on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial, and moved the court to exclude the same from the jury, but it does not appear that the question which elicited this statement was objected to by the defendant. The court overruled the objection and motion to exclude, and to this ruling of the court the defendant excepted. In his closing argument the solicitor used the following language, to wit: "Gentlemen, it is an outrage when the sheriff of your county and a grand juror are drinking together while court is in session." Defendant reserved an exception to this language of the solicitor, and asked the court to exclude the same from the jury, which the court declined to do, and to this action of the court the defendant excepted. The two foregoing exceptions are all that are reserved for the consideration of this court.
The defendant having failed to object to the question which called forth the irrelevant testimony above referred to, and having permitted the witness to answer it was not matter of right on his part to demand that it should be excluded by the court. If otherwise, a party could speculate upon the answer of a witness to questions calling for irrelevant or illegal testimony by accepting its benefits or rejecting it, as he may deem his interests require. McCalman v. State, 11 South. Rep. 408, (at the present term.) There was therefore no error in the refusal of the court to exclude the testimony objected to by the defendant. That testimony being before the jury, it was legitimate matter for comment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Sutton
... ... and may, if apparent upon the record, be taken by the ... appellate court, as the judgment of the court in such state ... of the case, if one were rendered, would be a nullity ... Karthaus v. N. C. & St. L. Ry., supra; London v. Cox, L ... R. 2 H. L. 239; ... eighteenth grounds in the assignment of errors ... McCalman's Case, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; ... Billingsley's Case, 96 Ala. 126, 11 So. 409; ... Traylor's Case, 100 Ala. 142, 14 So. 634; Ellis' ... Case, 105 Ala. 72, 75, 17 So. 119; Evans' Case, 109 Ala ... ...
-
West Pratt Coal Co. v. Andrews
... ... of it, and if prejudicial move to exclude it." ... McCalman's Case, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; ... Billingsley's Case, 96 Ala. 126, 11 So. 409; ... Washington's Case, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Wright's ... Case, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Ellis' Case, 105 Ala ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Kelly
...do with them," etc. See, also, Higdon v. Kennemer, 112 Ala. 351, 20 So. 470; McCalman v. State, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; Billingsley v. State, 96 Ala. 126, 11 So. 409; Watson v. Simmons, 91 Ala. 567, 8 So. It is unnecessary to consider the other questions raised. Reversed and remanded. BROWN......
-
Stowers Furniture Co. v. Brake
... ... Therefore the twenty-fourth ... ground in the assignment of errors is without merit ... McCalman's Case, 96 Ala. 98, 11 So. 408; ... Billingsley's Case, 96 Ala. 126, 11 So. 409; ... Washington's Case, 106 Ala. 58, 17 So. 546; Liner's ... Case, 124 Ala. 1, 27 So. 438 ... The ... and the evidence tends to show that it was at the instance of ... the defendant the property was seized thereunder. In this ... state of the case the defendant was a trespasser in no less ... degree than was the constable. Duckworth v. Johnson, ... 7 Ala. 578; Stetson v ... ...