Raymond v. Pointer
| Decision Date | 19 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 26. |
| Citation | 222 Ala. 518,133 So. 260 |
| Parties | RAYMOND v. POINTER ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from De Kalb County Court; E. M. Baker, Judge.
Action by A. C. Pointer and R. W. Lacey against Susie T. Raymond. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
W. B. Raymond and John B. Isbell, both of Fort Payne, for appellant.
Chas. J. Scott, of Fort Payne, for appellees.
The report of the case on former appeal (Raymond v. Pointer, 220 Ala. 593, 127 So. 153) discloses the nature of the suit, but no question there decided is now presented.
The sole assignment of error relates to the refusal of the court to permit defendant's witness Sizemore to testify for the reason that the rule had been invoked, and the witness had been present in the courtroom during the progress of the trial. Whether the evidence sought to be secured from this witness was merely cumulative is not made to appear, nor are the circumstances disclosed. This was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, and to work a reversal there must appear an abuse of this discretion. State v. Brookshire, 2 Ala. 303; Sloss-Sheffield Co. v. Smith (Ala. Sup.) 40 So. 91; McClellan v. State, 117 Ala. 140, 23 So. 653. The record discloses no such abuse.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. State
...reversible error. We disagree. Two cases cited by appellant, Teague v. State, 245 Ala. 339, 16 So.2d 877 (1944) and Raymond v. Pointer, 222 Ala. 518, 133 So. 260 (1931), stand for the proposition that it is within the discretion of the trial court to permit a witness who has not been under ......
- Merchants' Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Hubbard
-
KLR v. LCR
...v. Hall, 567 So.2d 1338 (Ala.1990); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 280 Ala. 343, 194 So.2d 505 (1966); Raymond v. Pointer, 222 Ala. 518, 133 So. 260 (1931); Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Smith, 40 So. 91 (Ala.1905). "The purpose to be served in putting witnesses `under the rule' i......
-
Yoshitomi v. Kailua Tavern, Ltd.
...Ohio 99,51 Am. Dec. 445; Mangold v. Oft, 63 Neb. 397, 88 N. W. 507; Commonwealth v. Crowley, 168 Mass. 121, 46 N. E. 415; Raymond v. Pointer, 222 Ala. 518, 133 So. 260; Kight v. Boren [Ohio], 67 N. E. [2d] 48; Murray v. Allerton, 3 Neb. Unoff. 291, 91 N. W. 518;Lee v. Thornton, 174 N. C. 28......