# Wimberly v. State

> Supreme Court of Alabama · June 30, 1920 · 204 Ala. 629

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3244099

## Case

- **Full name:** Wimberly v. State.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** June 30, 1920
- **Citations:** 204 Ala. 629; 86 So. 900; 1920 Ala. LEXIS 304
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Brown
- **Judges:** Anderson, Brown, Gardner, McCLELLAN, Savre, Sayre, Somerville, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3244099

## Opinion text

On Rehearing.
BROWN, J.
[8, 9]
On the suggestion of counsel for appellant that a writ of certiorari should be awarded ex mero motu to require the clerk of the circuit court to properly cer
*632
tify as a part of the record the charges refused to defendant, we have examined the •charges as they now appear in the record and find that the charges refused to the defendant were properly refused, either because they were bad or were covered by other charges given at the defendant’s • instance; and no reversible error would be shown if the charges were properly certified,and made a part of the record. Therefore it would be a useless procedure to award the writ.
The other questions presented by the application for rehearing have been re-examined, and we see no reason to change the conclusion as announced in the original opinion.
The application for rehearing is therefore overruled.
ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN, GARDNER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
SAVRE, SOMERVILLE, and BROWN, JJ., dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3244099. Public record. Not legal advice.