Paitry v. State
| Citation | 196 Ala. 598,72 So. 36 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 350 |
| Parties | PAITRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
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.
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State
...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 sufficiency of venire or the order therefor. The action of the court as to same is not for review, since the order and drawi......
-
Scott v. State
...... transcript on appeal should not contain such matters. In. the absence of any such question, such proceedings are,. upon appeal, presumed to have been 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 v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789;. . [154 So. 115.] . Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Vann v. State, 207 Ala. 152, 92 So. 182.". . . In view. of the change in the statute (Gen. ......
-
Interstate Land & Investment Co. v. Logan
...... compelling such principal to pay the debt. . . Contrary. to the common-law rule, in this state a mortgagee is allowed. to recover in a suit against the purchaser who has assumed. the debt, "upon the ground of equitable. subrogation." Young ......
-
Jiles v. State
...... where the appeal is upon the record proper, there being no. bill of exceptions, the appellate court cannot review the. action of the trial court, in 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, 102 So. 595; Thomas v. State, 20 Ala. App. 550, 103 So. 479;. Motley v. State, 20 Ala. App. 689, 102 So. 924;. Hallmark v. ......