Formby v. Williams

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BRICKEN, J.
• Citation: Formby v. Williams, 17 Ala.App. 24, 81 So. 360 (Ala. App. 1919)
• Decision Date: 18 March 1919
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 566
• Parties: FORMBY v. WILLIAMS.

81 So. 360

17 Ala.App. 24

FORMBY v. WILLIAMS.

7 Div. 566

Court of Appeals of Alabama

March 18, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Hugh D. Merrill, Judge.

Action by John F. Williams against R.L. Formby. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Willett & Walker and Ross Blackmon, all of Anniston, for appellant.

Knox Acker, Dixon & Sterne, of Anniston, for appellee.

BRICKEN J.

There are twenty-one assignments of error in this case, but the appellant, in his brief, only insists upon three. Under the uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, the assignments of error not insisted upon will be treated as waived. Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, 196 Ala. 599, 72 So. 158; Johnson v. State, 152 Ala. 93, 44 So. 671; Republic Iron & Steel Co. v. Quinton, 194 Ala. 126 69 So. 604.

This was an action in detinue by the appellee, plaintiff in the court below, against the appellant, defendant in the court below. The defendant was examined as a witness in his own behalf, and, upon being asked if he had been convicted in a criminal court of being a common cheat and swindler, denied that he had been so convicted. In rebuttal to this testimony the plaintiff, without objection on the part of defendant introduced in evidence a certified transcript showing the conviction of the defendant in the criminal court of Fulton county, Ga., of the offense of "cheating and swindling."

The seventh assignment of error is as follows:

"The court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to prove that he appealed from the judgment of conviction in the case against him in the criminal court of Atlanta, and that said case was reversed."

The record, however, shows that the court did not refuse to allow the defendant to make this proof; but, to the contrary, the recital of the record on this question is as follows:

"The defendant here offered to prove that he appealed from the judgment of conviction against him in the criminal court of Atlanta, and that the case was reversed. The plaintiff objected to the defendant making this proof. The court overruled this objection then and there."

It will thus be seen that, instead of the court denying the defendant the right to make this proof, it expressly held that he had the right.

The eighth assignment of error is based upon the ruling of the court in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the question asked defendant:

"I will ask you to state to

...