Ex parte Williams
| Decision Date | 04 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 538 |
| Citation | 104 So. 44,213 Ala. 145 |
| Parties | Ex parte WILLIAMS. v. STATE. WILLIAMS |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Granted Jan. 28, 1925
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1925
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of Albert Williams for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Williams v. State, 104 So. 38. Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.
See also, Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 104 So. 40.
R.T Goodwyn, of Montgomery, and W.J. Boykin, of Gadsden, for petitioner.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Petition for certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals affirming a judgment of conviction against petitioner for the offense of forgery. The former consideration of this cause on petition of the state (Ex parte State [Re Albert Williams v State], present term, 104 So. 40) presents no question now here for review.
The sole question here presented relates to the ruling of the trial court in admitting over defendant's objection testimony of certain handwriting experts comparing an admittedly genuine signature of the witness Irwin with the disputed signature on the note in question. Witness Irwin, at the request of the solicitor, wrote his name several times on slips of paper. These signatures were exhibited to the expert witnesses offered by the state. These experts were not familiar with Irwin's handwriting, but they had seen the signature of W.H. Irwin on the said note. The note, however had been lost, and was consequently not before the court or jury. They were permitted to testify, over defendant's objection, that in their opinion the signature exhibited to them as confessedly genuine was not the same as the signature on the lost instrument.
Prior to Acts 1915, p. 134, it was the rule in this state that a comparison of handwriting may not be instituted between the writing in question and the genuine extraneous paper not otherwise relevant and admissible in evidence. Washington v. State, 143 Ala. 62, 39 So. 388; Moon v. Crowder, 72 Ala. 79; Griffin v. Working Women's Home, 151 Ala. 597, 44 So. 605.
The genuine signature made by the witness before the court constituted no part of the relevant evidence in the case. It clearly was a genuine extraneous paper not otherwise relevant and admissible in evidence.
The sole remaining question, therefore, is whether or not the act of 1915, supra, has so far changed the rule as to render the evidence here in question competent and admissible. We are of the opinion that the situation here presented is not brought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. Holsclaw
... ... State, 15 Ala. App. 67, 72 So. 552; Bridgeforth ... v. Sharpe, 220 Ala. 188, 124 So. 416; Kirby v ... Brooks, 215 Ala. 507, 111 So. 235; Ex parte Williams ... (Williams v. State), 213 Ala. 145, 104 So. 44; ... Chisolm v. State, 204 Ala. 69, 85 So. 462 ... No ... testimony was ... ...
-
Bryant v. De Kalb Warehouse Co.
...of comparison to shed light on the issue as to whether the controverted signature is genuine. Section 420, Title 7, Code; Ex parte Williams, 213 Ala. 145, 104 So. 44. No such status here exists. Those documents are not admissible to support a theory that Bennett might have forged signatures......
-
Pugh v. Cannon
...of comparison to shed light on the issue as to whether the controverted signature is genuine. Section 420, Title 7, Code; Ex parte Williams, 213 Ala. 145, 104 So. 44.' The court did not err in allowing appellee to write his signature in the presence of the court and then receiving such writ......
-
Ingram v. State
... ... minority as expressed in Chisolm v. State, 204 Ala ... 69, 85 So. 462. The evidence offered was admissible. Ex ... [106 So. 394.] ... parte Williams (Ala.Sup.) 104 So. 44; Chisolm v. State, ... supra; Brown v. Welch, 209 Ala. 518, 96 So. 610 ... The ... judgment is reversed, ... ...