White v. State ex rel. Hardegree
| Decision Date | 14 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 98 |
| Citation | 53 So.2d 599,256 Ala. 18 |
| Parties | WHITE v. STATE ex rel. HARDEGREE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
A. L. Crumpton, Ashland, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Rushton, Stakely & Johnston, Montgomery, amicus curiae.
This is a quo warranto proceeding to test the authority of appellant to practice the profession of treating or offering to treat diseases of human beings, without first having obtained a certificate of qualification from the State Board of Medical Examiners or the license required by law. Appellant is still so engaged. Section 1136, Title 7, Code.
Appellant denied the allegations of the petition and averred that he has never at any time within two years last past treated or offered to treat diseases of human beings in Clay County, Alabama.
Upon that issue the petitioner proved by the testimony of witnesses that defendant was so engaged. The nature of the treatment was chiropractic. A certificate to practice that manner of treatment is required by law. Sections 259, 261, Title 46, Code. There was no conflict in such testimony, nor conflicting inferences. Defendant did not testify nor offer any testimony. There was nothing in the testimony which reflected upon the credibility of the witnesses. Their testimony was not vague or uncertain, nor of such nature as to infer that it was unworthy of belief in any material respect.
The court gave the affirmative charge against defendant at the instance of petitioner hypothesized upon a belief of the evidence. It also gave a charge at the instance of defendant that if the jury do not believe the evidence that should find defendant not guilty. See, Owen v. State, 240 Ala. 582, 200 So. 412; Fraser v. State, 216 Ala. 426, 113 So. 289. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Petitioner moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was the result of bias, passion and prejudice, also that it was contrary to the law and evidence. The court granted the motion and defendant has brought this appeal.
It is of course the peculiar province of the jury to determine the credibility of the evidence. But they are not the sole judges of it. The power to review their conclusion in a civil case is vested in the trial court in the first instance, and then in this Court on appeal. Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Slaton, 240 Ala. 560, 200 So. 564. This is a civil case. Harris v. State ex rel. Wilson, 215 Ala. 56, 109 So. 291.
'The court is authorized to grant a new trial when it has reason to believe a jury has erred either through caprice or ignorance as to the credibility of the testimony, since the court has superintendence of juries in matters of fact.' Wolf v. Doe ex dem. Delage, 150 Ala. 445, 43 So. 856, 857; Alabama Great Southern R. R. Co. v. Randle, 215 Ala. 535(4), 112 So. 112. A jury must give full faith and effect to a charge given them by the court whether it is erroneous or not. Fleming & Hines v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 148 Ala. 527, 41 So. 683.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State ex rel. Fowler
...verdict and grant a new trial. This motion being granted, the defendant appealed to this court. We affirmed. White v. State ex rel. Hardegree, 256 Ala. 18, 53 So.2d 599. It appears from appellant's brief that the grounds relied on for reversal are as I. That § 259, Tit. 46, Code 1940, supra......
-
Nichols v. Seaboard Coastline Ry. Co.
...is replete with clear and definitive statements of the rule. Relying on a series of earlier cases, the Court in White v. State ex rel. Hardegree, 256 Ala. 18, 53 So.2d 599 (1951), "It is essential to an orderly administration of justice that juries should obey the instructions of the court.......
-
New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Curtis
...Fire Ins. Co. v. Tierce, 245 Ala. 415, 17 So.2d 133; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Slaton, 240 Ala. 560, 200 So. 564; White v. State ex rel. Hardegree, 256 Ala. 18(4), 53 So.2d 599. It is necessary, therefore, for us to go to other features of the trial in order to see if any other phase of the......
-
Edwards Chevrolet Co. v. Brokaw
...Ala. 560, 200 So. 564; Penticost v. Massey, 202 Ala. 681, 81 So. 637; Talley v. Whitlock, 199 Ala. 28, 73 So. 976; White v. State ex rel. Hardegree, 256 Ala. 18, 53 So.2d 599. As pointed out by appellant the effect of given charge No. 3 and the above quoted excerpt from the court's oral cha......