Delbridge v. State, 4 Div. 238.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | FOSTER, Justice. |
| Citation | 242 Ala. 677,8 So.2d 160 |
| Parties | DELBRIDGE v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 238. |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1942 |
8 So.2d 160
242 Ala. 677
DELBRIDGE
v.
STATE.
4 Div. 238.
Supreme Court of Alabama
May 14, 1942
[242 Ala. 678] Willis L. McIlwain, of Union Springs, for appellant.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
FOSTER, Justice.
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree with the punishment fixed at death.
There is no bill of exceptions and no objections or rulings in the record for our consideration, except that on the motion for a new trial. That motion is based on affidavits of newly discovered evidence as to the character of the man alleged to have been killed by appellant. This motion is therefore predicated on matter not of record, but which can only be presented by a bill of exceptions. There being no bill of exceptions, the ruling on that motion cannot be considered under section 764, Title 7, Code of 1940.
We note that section 214, Title 7, of the Code of 1940, has included in it motions for a new trial. Under that section of the Code a bill of exceptions is not necessary, nor is the reservation of an exception. It is the same as was section 9459, Code of 1923, except that the latter did not include motions for a new trial. But in construing it as in that Code and comparing it with section 6088 of that Code (section 764, Title 7, Code of 1940), we made the distinction that section 9459, supra, could be used as to motions which would not require a bill of exceptions to show the matter on which the motion was based, as when it was based on the status of the record proper, when no extraneous evidence was needed. Dorrough v. Mackensen, 231 Ala. 431, 165 So. 575; Harris v. Barber, 237 Ala. 138(7), 186 So. 160; Gay v. Stewart, 239 Ala. 428, 195 So. 285. It was with that construction outstanding that the Code Committee added to section 9459, supra, motions for a new trial, in bringing it into the Code of 1940, section 214, Title 7.
We therefore take that to mean that the committee and legislature intended to leave that status of interpretation, by adding to section 9459, supra, motions for a new trial, and by leaving section 6088, supra, as it appeared in the Code. The result is that when a motion for a new trial is based on the status of the record as shown on its face, section 214, Title 7, Code of 1940, shall have application, and a bill of exceptions shall not be necessary as required by section 764, supra, unless the motion is based on matter extraneous to the record, and which is properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Gas Co. v. Jones, 6 Div. 120.
...to review the many decisions cited in brief of counsel preceding the change in the statute hereinabove set out. In Delbridge v. State, 242 Ala. 677, 8 So.2d 160, the two statutes were considered to the effect that where the motion for a new trial was based on affidavits of newly discovered ......
-
Lambert v. Jefferson, 5 Div. 239.
...expected. Sections 214 and 764, supra, as found in Title 7, Code of 1940. 'The following authorities support our view: Delbridge v. State, 242 Ala. 677, 8 So.2d 160; Prater v. Prater et al., 244 Ala. 136, 12 So.2d 417; Alabama Gas Co. v. Jones, 244 Ala. 413, 13 So.2d 873; Arnold v. State, A......
-
Byrd v. State, 2 Div. 291
...and turbulence since there was no evidence to show that the defendant acted in self-defense. Wright v. State, supra; Delbridge v. State, 242 Ala. 677, 8 So.2d So far we have been dealing with the relevancy of proof offered by the defendant of prior difficulties and of the wounds suffered by......
-
Birmingham Electric Co. v. Cochran, 6 Div. 909.
...12, the basis of assignment of error 4, which denied plaintiff's right to recover "on account of any loss of wages or earnings from [242 Ala. 677] her employment" was properly refused. [Italics supplied.] As observed in Bankers' Mortgage Bond Co. v. Sproull, 220 Ala. 245, 246, 124 So. 907, ......
-
Alabama Gas Co. v. Jones, 6 Div. 120.
...to review the many decisions cited in brief of counsel preceding the change in the statute hereinabove set out. In Delbridge v. State, 242 Ala. 677, 8 So.2d 160, the two statutes were considered to the effect that where the motion for a new trial was based on affidavits of newly discovered ......
-
Lambert v. Jefferson, 5 Div. 239.
...expected. Sections 214 and 764, supra, as found in Title 7, Code of 1940. 'The following authorities support our view: Delbridge v. State, 242 Ala. 677, 8 So.2d 160; Prater v. Prater et al., 244 Ala. 136, 12 So.2d 417; Alabama Gas Co. v. Jones, 244 Ala. 413, 13 So.2d 873; Arnold v. State, A......
-
Byrd v. State, 2 Div. 291
...and turbulence since there was no evidence to show that the defendant acted in self-defense. Wright v. State, supra; Delbridge v. State, 242 Ala. 677, 8 So.2d So far we have been dealing with the relevancy of proof offered by the defendant of prior difficulties and of the wounds suffered by......
-
Birmingham Electric Co. v. Cochran, 6 Div. 909.
...12, the basis of assignment of error 4, which denied plaintiff's right to recover "on account of any loss of wages or earnings from [242 Ala. 677] her employment" was properly refused. [Italics supplied.] As observed in Bankers' Mortgage Bond Co. v. Sproull, 220 Ala. 245, 246, 124 So. 907, ......