Williams v. State, 6 Div. 569

Citation258 Ala. 638,64 So.2d 617
Decision Date16 April 1953
Docket Number6 Div. 569
PartiesWILLIAMS v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

M. B. Grace and Kelvie Applebaum, Birmingham, for petitioner.

Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

MERRILL, Justice.

The petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals must be stricken because not made on transcript paper. Supreme Court Rule 36, Code 1940, Title 7, Appendix; Bates v. General Steel Tank Co., 256 Ala. 466, 55 So.2d 218; Roanoke-Goodwater Pine Co. v. Cannon, 256 Ala. 404, 55 So.2d 137; Morgan Plan Co., Inc. v. Beverly, 255 Ala. 235, 51 So.2d 179; Mann v. Department of Industrial Relations, 255 Ala. 201, 50 So.2d 786; Anderson v. State, 251 Ala. 32, 36 So.2d 244.

Petition stricken.

SIMPSON, STAKELY and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Hochman v. State, 1 Div. 700
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 21 d5 Dezembro d5 1956
    ...249 Ala. 201, 30 So.2d 483; Peterson v. State, 248 Ala. 179, 27 So.2d 30; Ex parte Wood, 215 Ala. 280, 110 So. 409; Williams v. State, 258 Ala. 638, 64 So.2d 617. Petition LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur. ...
  • Accardo v. State, 7 Div. 414
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16 d4 Outubro d4 1958
    ...391, 37 So.2d 440; Maddox v. City of Birmingham, 255 Ala. 440, 52 So.2d 166; Bray v. State, 257 Ala. 111, 57 So.2d 555; Williams v. State, 258 Ala. 638, 64 So.2d 617; Conley v. State, 265 Ala. 450, 92 So.2d 9; Hochman v. State, 265 Ala. 404, 91 So.2d 502. (2) The record before us does not d......
  • Stinson v. State, 8 Div. 110
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 21 d4 Junho d4 1962
    ...270 Ala. 589, 120 So.2d 751; Houston v. State, 265 Ala. 588, 93 So.2d 439; Conley v. State, 265 Ala. 450, 92 So.2d 9; Williams v. State, 258 Ala. 638, 64 So.2d 617; Duckett v. State, 257 Ala. 589, 60 So.2d 357, and authorities cited in those As we see it, nothing would be gained by discussi......
  • Bradfield v. State, 8 Div. 239
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 16 d4 Abril d4 1953
    ......        The defendant was convicted under Count 6 of the indictment, which is as follows:. 'Count 6. The Grand Jury of said County further charge, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT