Opinion

Johnson v. State

  • 3 Ala. App. 155
  • 57 So. 499
  • 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 409
Court
Alabama Court of Appeals
Filed
Jan 11, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Pelham
On the bench
Pelham
Cited by
5 cases
Authority
More cited than 86.4%

The opinion

PELHAM, J.

The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law. Section 7352 of the Code of 1907.

The state’s witness was properly allowed to testify to the intoxicating* effect of the liquor purchased.— Marks v. State, 159 Ala. 71 , 48 South. 861 , 133 Am. St. Rep. 20 ; Brantley v. State, 91 Ala. 47 , 8 South. 816 ; Carl v. State, 87 Ala. 17 , 6 South. 118 , 1 L. R. A. 380; Knowles v. State, 80 Ala. 9 .

*157 The charges set out in the record as refused are not shown to have been asked in writing or to have been separately asked or refused. The only statement in reference to the charges is as MIoavs: “Here the defendant asked the following charges, which were refused by the court.” Following this statement in the bill of exceptions six charg’es are set out, but are not shown to have been in writing. Charges moved for must- be in writing (Code, § 5364), and unless the record affirmatively shows that the charges asked were in writing, the trial court Avill not be put in error for their refusal. —Henderson v. State, 137 Ala. 83 , 34 South. 828 ; Foxworth v. Brown, 114 Ala. 299 , 21 South. 413 ; Bellinger v. State, 92 Ala. 86 , 9 South. 399 ; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76 , 9 South. 87 ; Rickets v. B. S. Ry. Co. 85 Ala. 600 , 5 South. 353 ; Wheless v. Rhodes, 70 Ala. 419 ; Crosby v. Hutchinson, 53 Ala. 5 .

It was not improper for the court to allow the official stenographer at the request of the jury to read over to them the evidence of one of the witnesses as taken by the reporter, to refresh the memory of the jury as to Avhat had been testified to by the witness. The objection and exception to the court’s allowing this to be done is shown by the bill of exceptions as having been taken after the court had permitted it.

The judgment entry shows the defendant Avas sentenced to work out the costs at the rate of 40 cents per day, when the rate should have been 75 cents per day, and the judgment will be here corrected in that respect, and, as so corrected, the case AVill be affirmed .—Dow ling v. City of Troy, 1 Ala. App. 508 , 56 South. 118 ; Johnson v. State, 94 Ala. 35 , 10 South. 667 ; Vaughan v. State, 83 Ala. 55 , 3 South. 530 ; Miller v. State, 77 Ala. 41 ; Bradley v. State, 69 Ala. 318 .

Corrected and affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.