Paitry v. State, 6 Div. 350
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | SOMERVILLE, J. |
| Citation | 196 Ala. 598,72 So. 36 |
| Parties | PAITRY v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 350 |
72 So. 36
196 Ala. 598
PAITRY
v.
STATE.
6 Div. 350
Supreme Court of Alabama
May 18, 1916
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
Harry Paitry, alias Harry Patrey, was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
SOMERVILLE, J.
The record in this case contains no bill of exceptions, and we cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing a number of written charges requested by the defendant and set out in the record paper.
This case was tried after September 22, 1915, and, under the provisions of the act approved on that date (Acts 1915, p. 708) amendatory of section 6256 of the Code, the transcript should not have contained the order of the court for the special venire, or fixing the day for the trial of defendant; no question thereon being raised before the trial court. We call attention to this new rule of practice in order that it may not be overlooked in future.
We find no error on the record, and the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C.J., and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
...providing the same, and that no objection was or is duly raised by defendant ( Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36) to the sufficiency of venire or the order therefor. The action of the court as to same is not for review, since the order and d......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...regular and legal. Such are the express terms of the statute. Section 3249, Code 1923. See, also, Supreme Court Rule 27; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Johnson State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; [154 So. 115.] Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 6......
-
Jiles v. State, 5 Div. 992.
...refusing the written charges requested by the defendant, though such charges are set out as a part of the record proper. Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683; Sanford v. State, 19 Ala. App. 242, 96 So. 646; Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, ......
-
Charley v. State, 1 Div. 132
...Anderson v. State, 85 So. 789; Hendley v. State, 200 Ala. 546, 76 So. 904; Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Waldrop v. State, 185 Ala. 20, 64 So. 80; Acts 1915, p. 708; Sup.Ct.Rule 27, as amended March 23, 1918, 198 Ala. xv, 77 South. vii.......
-
Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
...providing the same, and that no objection was or is duly raised by defendant ( Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36) to the sufficiency of venire or the order therefor. The action of the court as to same is not for review, since the order and d......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...regular and legal. Such are the express terms of the statute. Section 3249, Code 1923. See, also, Supreme Court Rule 27; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Johnson State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; [154 So. 115.] Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 6......
-
Jiles v. State, 5 Div. 992.
...refusing the written charges requested by the defendant, though such charges are set out as a part of the record proper. Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683; Sanford v. State, 19 Ala. App. 242, 96 So. 646; Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, ......
-
Charley v. State, 1 Div. 132
...Anderson v. State, 85 So. 789; Hendley v. State, 200 Ala. 546, 76 So. 904; Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Waldrop v. State, 185 Ala. 20, 64 So. 80; Acts 1915, p. 708; Sup.Ct.Rule 27, as amended March 23, 1918, 198 Ala. xv, 77 South. vii.......