Canto v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 133 |
| Citation | 73 So. 826,15 Ala.App. 480 |
| Parties | CANTO v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
Joe Canto was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
M. Frank Cahalan, of Birmingham, for appellant.
W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to a term of 10 years' imprisonment. The appeal is upon the record proper without a bill of exceptions.
Error cannot be predicated upon the overruling of the motion to quash the indictment; it is a matter of discretion with the trial court whether it will put the defendant to his demurrer or plea in abatement, as the case may be. Amos Smith's Case, 73 So. 824, present term; Bryant's Case, 79 Ala. 282; Johnson's Case, 134 Ala. 54, 32 So. 724; Mosely's Case, 1 Ala.App. 108, 56 So. 35; Josiah Clark's Case, 72 So. 291.
The statute requires the mero motu charge given by the trial court to be set out in the transcript. Acts 1915, p. 815. This does not appear. In the absence of the mero motu charge, and of a bill of exceptions, this court cannot review the written requests to charge refused to appellant. Mitchell's Case, 71 So. 982; Clay's Case, 71 So. 982; Clark's Case, 72 So. 291; Dorough's Case, 72 So. 208.
Aside from these questions, the record proper discloses no error. The judgment entry and proceedings had in support thereof appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clinton Mining Co. v. Bradford
......242, 69 So. 621; St. L. &. S.F.R. Co. v. Sutton, 169 Ala. 389, 401, 55 So. 989,. Ann.Cas.1912B, 366. . . Count. 1 was drawn to state a cause of action under the first. subdivision of the Employers' Liability Act (Code, §. 3910), and attributes. [76 So. 77] . plaintiff's ...v. Owen,. 72 So. 8; Dorough v. State, 14 Ala.App. 110, 72 So. 208; Chappell v. State [App.] 73 So. 134; Canto. v. State [App.] 73 So. 826), and may be considered. together in determining whether a reversible error was. committed by the court in its ......
-
White v. City of Birmingham
...633, 72 So. 291; Fealy v. City of Birmingham, 15 Ala.App. 367, 73 So. 296; Smith v. State, 15 Ala.App. 478, 73 So. 824; Canto v. State, 15 Ala.App. 480, 73 So. 826. The transcript of the evidence being stricken, our review is limited to the record proper. The record proper is in all things ......
-
Haynes v. State
...with the trial court whether it will put the defendant to his demurrer or plea in abatement, as the case may be.' Canto v. State, 15 Ala.App. 480, 73 So. 826, 827; Mosely v. State, 1 Ala.App. 108, 56 So. 35; Johnson v. State, 134 Ala. 54, 32 So. 724; Pynes v. State, 207 Ala. 395, 92 So. App......
-
Hampton v. Tant
...... but does not rise to the dignity of an order of the court,. and will not authorize a review. Amos Smith v. State, 73 So. 824, present term; Tinney v. C. of Ga. Ry. Co., 129 Ala. 525, 30 So. 623. . . No. error appearing on the record, the judgment ......