Wadsworth v. Williams

• Decision Date: 22 June 1893
• Citation: 101 Ala. 264,13 So. 755
• Parties: WADSWORTH v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

13 So. 755

101 Ala. 264

WADSWORTH v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 22, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Autauga county; J. R. Dowdell, Judge.

Trespass by James R. Williams against W. W. Wadsworth to recover damages for cutting and carrying away timber and wood from plaintiff's land. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The only evidence introduced for the plaintiff, as shown in the bill of exceptions, were several deeds conveying the land on which the trespass was committed to the plaintiff, and the bill of exceptions recites that "said deeds, on their faces, and the evidence, tended to show that said deeds were executed, filed for record, and recorded." The defendant requested the court to give the following written charge, and excepted to the court's refusal to give it as asked "(1) The juror, in investigating the question of possession of the lands, the subject of pretention in this suit, may look to the fact, if it be a fact, that some of the deeds introduced by the plaintiff were not recorded in the probate court of Autauga county until the commencement of this suit in this case."

J. M Falkner, for appellant.

COLEMAN J.

This was an action to recover damages for trespass upon lands. The assignments of error are upon the refusal of the court to give two several charges requested in writing by the defendant. No briefs have been filed by either party. The bill of exceptions is very meager, and does not purport to set out all the evidence. When this is the case, this court will presume there was evidence introduced on the trial which justified the action of the court. Packet Co. v. Slater ^[1] and authorities collected.

The first charge requested directed the attention of the jury to a single fact. There may have been other facts in evidence controlling or qualifying the fact thus singled out. Moreover, it is not error to refuse a charge which emphasizes and gives undue prominence to any single fact. Such charges are calculated to mislead the jury, and generally are regarded as argumentative, and for this reason may be properly refused. Bell v. Kendall, 93 Ala. 489, 8 South. Rep. 492; Railroad Co. v. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9, 9 South. Rep. 375; Jackson v. Robinson, 93 Ala. 157, 9 South. Rep. 391; Eastis v. Montgomery, 93 Ala. 293, 9 South. Rep. 311.

From all that appears in the record the second charge refused was abstract. Bostic v. State, 94 Ala. 45, 10 South....