Murray v. State
| Decision Date | 25 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 328 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 253,84 So. 393 |
| Parties | MURRAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.
Ed. Murray was convicted on a charge of violating the prohibition law, and from the judgment he appeals. Affirmed.
C.W. Tompkins, of Mobile, for appellant.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The only errors complained of are the refusal of the court to give at the request of the defendant in writing the affirmative charges as to the several counts in the complaint, and to the action of the court in allowing the solicitor to ask the defendant, while on the witness stand, "Where were you convicted for serving liquor?"
There was evidence tending to prove the allegations in the several counts of the complaint, and therefore the charges requested were properly refused.
The defendant, in answer to the question, "Where were you convicted for serving liquor?" answered that he did not remember. If the question was erroneous, the answer rendered it harmless.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harbin v. State
...as an expert this should have been done. The answer to the last question set out above was not harmful to the appellant. Murray v. State, 17 Ala.App. 253, 84 So. 393; Johnson v. State, 260 Ala. 276, 69 So.2d Basil Denny, the deceased, and one Morton left the place of the homicide some time ......
-
Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Dean
... ... the court, that under the testimony they both could not be ... his employer, that under the law in this state the plaintiff ... could only recover upon proof that he was the emploé of both ... of the defendants. It is true that "this action, though ... ex ... ...
-
Speagle v. State, 6 Div. 96.
... ... cross-examination, whether or not he was "in the liquor ... business." He answered that he was not ... So, ... waiving any other consideration, his "answer" cured ... any error there might have been in permitting the question to ... be asked him. See Murray v. State, 17 Ala. App. 253, ... 84 So. 393 ... The ... portion of the oral charge of the court, to which exception ... was reserved, seems to us to be true and correct. If it ... should be deemed by appellant abstract in his case, we are ... unable to see how it could have injured ... ...
- Stephenson v. State