Bufford v. Little

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Citation: 48 So. 697,159 Ala. 300
• Parties: BUFFORD v. LITTLE.
• Decision Date: 18 January 1909

48 So. 697

159 Ala. 300

BUFFORD
v.
LITTLE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 18, 1909

Rehearing Denied Feb. 16, 1909.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Macon County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

Action by C. E. Little against M. H. Bufford for damages for cutting trees from land. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The first count is for cutting or sawing 300 pine trees growing upon the land of plaintiff, which is described as the E. 1/2 of N.W. 1/4 of section 21. The second count is for carrying away 300 pine trees, which had been cut down and were on the said land. The defense was the general issue. The witness testified that he did not count the trees, and that he did not know how many had been sawed, but that he had looked over the ground where the timber had been sawed on the land in suit, and in his best judgment there were 300 trees sawed. He was then asked by counsel if in his best judgment there could have been less than 250 trees cut or sawed. Objection was interposed and overruled to this question. The plaintiff testified that he wrote the defendant a letter, addressed it to him, put a two-cent stamp on it, and put it in the post office. Plaintiff's counsel then, after asking the defendant and his counsel to produce the letter and the letter being produced, asked the witness if he knew the substantial contents of the letter and what they were. Objection was interposed and overruled to this question, and witness answered that he knew the substantial contents of the letter, and that he wrote the defendant that he had depredated on his land and had cut his timber, and that he should have known better, and that he would expect him to pay for it, or he would prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Motion was made to exclude the answer, which was overruled. The objection to the question calling for the contents of the letter was that it was incompetent, illegal, irrelevant, and immaterial, and the motion to exclude the answer as to the contents of the letter was based upon the same grounds.

The following charges were refused to the defendant: "(1) Plaintiff must prove with certainty the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence before you that the defendant took away from the land of the plaintiff 300 pine trees already cut down, as averred in the complaint." (2) Same as 1, except that there is no evidence that defendant cut or sawed 300 pine trees. (3) General affirmative charge to find for the...