Henderson v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 1903 |
| Citation | 34 So. 828,137 Ala. 83 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.
Porter Henderson was convicted for obtaining money under false pretenses. Affirmed.
The indictment charged that, with the intent to defraud James T Andrew, the defendant did falsely pretend that he had earned from the Plant System Railway $18, and by means of such false pretenses received from James T. Andrew $18. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged. The bill of exceptions contains the following recital with reference to the giving of the charge requested by the state: "The following charge was given at the request of the state, to which the defendant duly excepted 'If the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, that the defendant did falsely pretend to James T Andrew, with the intent to defraud him, that he had then earned, in time, with the railroad, $18, and thereby obtained from him $18, the defendant should be convicted, if the jury further believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that this was done in Montgomery county, and within twelve months before the finding of the indictment.' " The bill of exceptions contains the following recital as to the charges requested by the defendant: "The following several charges were asked by the defendant, and exceptions were duly made to their refusal." There then follow 12 charges requested by the defendant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Since the decision in Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. 5, it has been uniformly held that the judgment of a trial court cannot be reversed for its refusal to give a charge asked, unless it appears that it was asked in writing, as the statute (Code 1896, § 3328) requires. This is upon the familiar principle that all reasonable intendments must be indulged to support the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction, and that, unless error is affirmatively shown by the record, no reversal can be had.
The several charges refused to defendant are not shown to have been in writing. This of itself justified their refusal, and we cannot consider them. Wheless v. Rhodes, 70 Ala. 419; Ricketts v. Birmingham St. Ry. Co., 85 Ala. 600, 5 So. 353; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76, 9 So. 87; Bellinger v. State, 92 Ala. 86, 9 So. 399; Foxworth v. Brown, 114 Ala. 299, 21 So. 413.
The charge given at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentley v. Lawson
...to give a charge asked unless it appears that the charge was asked in writing as the statute (§ 273, Title 7) requires. Henderson v. State, 137 Ala. 83, 84, 34 So. 828. A reversal should not be allowed where the complaining party has made no request at all. Bush v. Stanton, 273 Ala. 615, 61......
-
Foote v. State
... ... amended by Acts 1915, p. 815, was properly refused. The ... refusal of a charge requested, which is not shown to have ... been asked in writing, does not constitute reversible error, ... but it will be presumed to have been refused because it was ... not asked in writing. Henderson v. State, 137 Ala ... 83, 34 So. 828. In the instant case, it affirmatively appears ... that the general charge in favor of the defendant was not ... requested in writing, the bill of exceptions reciting that: ... "Defendant's counsel, in his argument to the court, ... asked for the general ... ...
-
Hedden v. Wefel
...court, and to this end the bill of exceptions will be construed most strongly against the party complaining of the ruling. Henderson v. State, 137 Ala. 83, 34 So. 828; Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. 5; Kelly Burke, 132 Ala. 235, 31 So. 512; Cawley v. State, 133 Ala. 128, 32 So. 227; Dickens ......
-
Emergency Aid Life Ass'n v. Gamble
...court in denying to give instructions which are not tendered in writing. Osborn v. State, 30 Ala.App. 386, 6 So.2d 461; Henderson v. State, 137 Ala. 83, 34 So. 828. other assignment of error is predicated on the action of the trial judge in refusing appellant's charge number 2. A treatment ......