Goff v. Sellers
Decision Date | 20 January 1927 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 297 |
Citation | 111 So. 210,215 Ala. 489 |
Parties | GOFF et al. v. SELLERS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W.L. Parks, Judge.
Action by W.W. Sellers against J.W. Goff, J.J. Faulk, and W.T Speigner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
W.O Mulkey, of Geneva, and J.M. Loflin, of Enterprise, for appellants.
J.C Yarborough and J.W. Hicks, both of Enterprise, for appellee.
Section 9507, Code 1923 (section 2274, Code 1852), declares that the court "shall not charge upon the effect of the testimony, unless required to do so by one of the parties." It has been held that this section "was not intended to abridge the original, inherent power of the court to direct the attention of the jury to undisputed, admitted facts." Dennis v. State, 112 Ala. 64, 20 So. 925; Tidwell v. State, 70 Ala. 33. And, Carter v. Chambers, 79 Ala. 223.
In this case, the fact of defendants' assault upon the plaintiff, as charged, being undisputed and expressly admitted by defendants, could be properly stated to the jury as a fact, without hypothesis. So, also, the admitted circumstances all showed, to a certain legal conclusion, that there was no justification or excuse for the assault; that is, none that could be recognized in a court of law, however strong the moral justification may have been.
In the case of Schloss v. Inman, 129 Ala. 424, 430, 30 So. 667, 669, it appeared that the trial judge, in response to a statement by the jury that they did not understand the general affirmative charge given for the plaintiffs, said:
"I charge you whether you believe the evidence for the plaintiffs or the claimant you must find for the plaintiffs."
This court said:
Thus prior even to the adoption of rule 45, this court recognized the validity of the doctrine of error without injury in this class of cases with respect to violations of this statute by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Batson v. State
...... former pleading, or to instruct the jury on the effect or. sufficiency of the evidence. Section 9507, Code; Goff v. Sellers (Ala.Sup.) 111 So. 210; S.A.L.R. Co. v. Savage (Ala.Sup.) 109 So. 748. There was no motion to. exclude the evidence nor demurrer to the ......
-
Rowe v. State
...... the late, learned, and lamented Mr. Justice Somerville, for. our Supreme Court, in the opinion in the case of Goff et. al. v. Sellers, 215 Ala. 489, 111 So. 210, 211:. 'Section 9507, Code 1923 (section 2274, Code of 1852). [Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 270], declares ......
-
Blair v. Greene
......They were insisted upon by appellants as the true. facts. This Court has held that under such circumstances the. cause will not be reversed. Goff et al. v. Sellers,. 215 Ala. 489, 111 So. 210; Schloss v. Inman, Smith & Co.,. 129 Ala. 424, 430, 30 So. 667, 669. Here there is no dispute. as to ......
-
Fields v. State, 1 Div. 857
...rev'd on other grounds, 437 So.2d 1330 (Ala.1983). See also Townsell v. State, 255 Ala. 495, 52 So.2d 186 (1951); Goff v. Sellers, 215 Ala. 489, 111 So. 210 (1927); 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 670 The trial court's comment in answer to the juror's question, "Insofar as this case is concerned, Mr. ......