*1 confusing instruction C Refused State, 31 Bringhurst misleading. v. Ala.App. 608, 20 885. So.2d did the accused conviction of A upon depend E witness; D charges therefore prem a false predicated abstract State, 140 Ala. Gregory v.
ise. State, 25.9; Baxley So.
State, but testified only
appears one witness prosecution.
behalf indicated, ordered
For errors re- judgment below
versed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Court of 16, 1948.
March May 25,
Rehearing Denied *2 many
The presented evidence was aspects conflicting other undisputed, but points. material appellant The brief filed counsel for by opinion inadequate is in our on which to base a review of case. consists of “Statement of Facts” included which is statement of Law,” “Undisputed Facts; Propositions of propositions forth. which are set “Propositions” sup- first three
ported by State, citation of cases from this fourth by citation of two Louisiana remaining cases. The “Proposi- seven tions” unsupported. propositions These by are followed “Argument.” paragraph The first of this argument consists largely of inferences drawn by from the facts appellant’s coun- sel. We conclude from its verdict that the jury drew other inferences from evi- dence.
The remaining portion
is as follows:
“Propositions
3,
4, 5,
6 and 7 deals
negligence
simple
both
and wanton.
Assignments
7, 8,
10, 11,
error
14, 15,
16 and 17 deal or are founded
upon negligence
simple
either
or wanton.
Waid, Jr.,
and L. P.
P. A. Nash
both
assignment
“Under
of error 2
we
Oneonta,
appellant.
for
clearly
admissible
Rogers,
Birmingham,
appel-
Geo.
permitted
should have been
by
court
lee.
give
experience
her
in driving an auto-
mobile. As we think this was error where
HARWOOD, Judge.
question
negligence
of.
arose.
grew
The suit below
out of an automo-
opinion
“In our
the giving of
charge
below,
Plaintiff
bile collision.
who
assignment
set out in
of error
here,
7 at
appellee
filed her suit against
request
clearly
defendant,
error.
appellant here, on
com-
a-
gave
general
court
charge
for the
plaint containing
simple
count
negli-
plaintiff as
plea
to the wanton
of the de-
complaint
gence. To
the defendant
fendant.
the admitted evidence
issue,
pleaded
general
pleas
and two
plaintiff herself
and her
recoupment
husband who
charging
wanton
set-off
car,
driving
if there
simple
were no
negligence
negligence
respec-
wantonness
that action I do not
tively.
see
the party
unless
ad-
jury
was in favor
verdict
he intentionally
mitted that
did it. This
damages
plaintiff,
being
her
assessed at
required
negligence.
wanton
Judgment was
entered
$500.00.
pursuant
to said verdict.
“We
insist
that was
requested by the
new
be-
defendant and
Defendant’s motion for
trial
refused
been given
have
duly
appeal
filed
overruled
it was
error for the court
perfected
same.
court.
refuse
18, main shall
contain
recital of
condensed
assignment
“As
pre-
new trial evidence
narrative form as
for a
grounds in the motion
concisely.
sent
is the
the substance
the court
overruled
*3
except
to
accurate
above,
The statement
be taken
be
will
same
has been mentioned
as
1, 3, 4,
decision,
op-
2,
5
and sufficient
the
assignments
for
unless
to
error
as
of
posite party in
shall make the
court
brief
I
not
to criticize the
his
6.
like
necessary
Fol-
corrections
things
place
took
under as-
or additions.
but
the
lowing
statement,
prejudicial
shall con-
signment
very
the brief
of error 1 was
tain,
separate
rights
the
under a
of each
heading
to
the matter and
in
on,
prop-
separately
action error
relied
numbered
motion for
new trial included
concisely,
points,
court,
opinion,
ositions
which, in our
the
or
stated
of the
elaboration, together
partic-
court
on
without
or
granted
should have
support
with
authorities relied on in
the
ular motion.
cases,
of them
names of
citing
the
3, 4,
6
“Assignments
5 and
are
error
of
parties
given,
book
must be
with the
assignments
exceptions
on
to the Court’s
page
reported.”
oral
in the mo-
were set out
as,
think,
separate heading
tion and which
we
statement under a
an
the
of each error relied
in the
error.
the laws
State of
on
of
mentioned
pertains
dog-
generally
there is no
as a
above rule
what is
Alabama
such
to
charged
Jury.
“Specifications
fall
Court
the
called
as the
Fur-
the
of Error”
ther,
many
In
our
have
laws of the State of Ala- brief.
cases
courts
bama,
“Assignments”
used
apparently
have been no moral
the term
synonymous
“Specifications
as
Er-
damage
of
victory without the assessment of
coun-
any
referring
for
ror” when
briefs of
verdict
either
to
assignments
or
defendant
sel
than
of er-
in the Court
rather
to
below.
proper.
ror
record
in the
respectfully
“We
insist
this cause
on
be reversed and remanded
stated
As
this court
F.
J.
many
hereinabove
out
errors
set
Jr., etc.,
Snellings
Jones,
Malvin
33 So.
v.
;1
cause.”
371,
2d
372
appeal
analogous
out of an
suing
is
appeals
duty
In criminal
it is the
.
to
institution of
new suit The
as
apparent
of
all
court
consider
errors
signment
place
of errors take the
record,
of the
assigned
whether
or
not.
assign
bill.
declaration
389,
or
office of
Section
Title
Code of Alabama
appellate
of error
to inform
ments
is
appeals only
assigned
1940. In civil
errors
appellee
precise
court and the
er
will be considered and where the brief of
on.
rors relied
Kinnon v.
Louisville &
direct the
counsel
does not
Co.,
397;
N. R.
187
Life
is
attention of
court to what
deemed
Casualty Ins.
&
Co. of
Wo
error,
required
Tennessee v.
appellate
is
not
mack, Ala.App. 6,
151
26
So.
certiorari
and cast
search
record
about for
70, 151
assign
denied 228 Ala.
So. 880. An
specified in the
brief.
errors
Morton
not
succinctly
ment
Clark,
error which does not
Ala.App. 439,
65
al.
10
et
complained
point
out
error
of with
408.
precision
sufficient clearness and
will not
essential form
and elements of
As to
appeal.
Harden,
be considered
Inc. v.
Supreme
brief
Court Rule
Harden,
Er
So. 94.
Appendix,
Tit.
provides
Code
assigned
not
rors
will
be
not
reviewed.
follows:
as
@=»719
Appeal
Error,
Ala.Dig.,
(1).
“Appellant’s
shall contain
brief
a con-
hurry
appeal
perfecting
“In
so much of the record
cise statement
practice
lawyers
assign
every
exception
is
usual
fully
error
presents
might
all matters that
even
on,
error
referring
pages
relied
to the
of the as
faintly
Upon
study
meritorious.
further
transcript.
insufficiency
If the
the evi-
preparing
while
brief he
conclude
finding,
verdict
his
dence to sustain the
or
that,
statement,
anxiety
fully
pos-
law,
assigned,
cover all
fact
is
his
p.
Ante,
speci-
of such
unavailing
in-
rors
has
if
he
assignments,
in his
sible errors
fied
These he
errors is without merit.
untenable.
cluded
some
carrying
not
simply
abandon
is free to
and over-
grouping
result
argument,
them
in his brief
assignments
forward
lapping grouping
that errors
corollary
the rule
supra,
for as a
argument,
mentioned
ap-
assigned will not be considered
not
assignments
combination
all
assignments
proposition that
peal
Clearly several
group.
of error into one
considered
specified in
brief are
merit.
without
assignments
of such
as abandoned.”
discussion
above
In view of the
*4
to be
opinion
due
our
this cause is
ap
in a
a brief
civil
The office of
ordered.
affirmed
it is so
and
peal
to under
appellate court
is to aid the
give
and
quickly the
involved
stand
issues
Affirmed.
un
adequate
an
basis for such
such court
Rehearing
On
sifting of
derstanding.
progressive
A
support
applica-
In
in
of his
his brief
discarding
proper,
contents of
record
:
rehearing appellant’s counsel states
tion for
portions
proper con
necessary to
those
not
opinion
facts
“In
of
statement
our
clusion,
highlighting
and
the acts of
appellant’s
of this
in
brief
submission
appellant feels
lower court of which the
complied
the follow-
technically
cause
with
complain
cause
be
he
to
has
portion
ing
Supreme Court Rule
of
every
adequate
An
ultimate
of
brief.
aim
Appendix:
Code
Tit. 7
specification
a
of the errors
relied
“
insufficiency
to
the evidence
‘If
of
refining process.
in
necessary step
such
finding, in fact
sustain the verdict or
Actually,
specified
ap-
no errors are
in
law,
assigned, the statement shall con-
propositions
pellant’s
eleven
brief. The
tain a
recital
condensed
of
properly
set forth cannot be
so considered.
present
form so
the sub-
narrative
as to
repetition
”
Since mere
of the as
a
concisely.’
stance
and
signments
appellant’s
brief
opinion
“In our
court overruled
compliance
sufficient
with Rule
phase
of the case.
motion for
re-
10 as to
statement of the errors relied
sepa-
assigned,
hearing in
below
on,
24
Wright,
W. S.
&
see
Wiles
Son v.
rately
severally,
overruling
and
of that
certainly
law,
motion
and
which were
as
fact
assign
general reference in bulk to such
assignment of
to this court.”
made
errors
portion
done in that
ments as
firmly
opinion
We are still
“Argument,” and
out
brief
labeled
set
appellant
filed
the brief
cannot be so considered.
above
present
cause was defective
failed
following
govern-
thinkWe
that rules
review. We will
this court
matters for
ing
contents and form of
presenta-
condone this defective
however
appropriately
also
mentioned
brief
reviewing
extent of
tion to the
the suffi-
present
pertaining
the defects
in the
ciency
of evidence
fact
in law to
case.
brief
verdict.
sustain the
merely
A brief
complaining in
appellant sets out the facts in this
rulings
terms of
made the basis of
broad
follows:
case as
error in effect
aban
assignments of
works
“Undisputed
alleged
Evidence:
ac
This
assignments.
such
donment of
Western
happened in
County,
Blount
cident
Ala
al.,
Tel.
Emerson et
Union
Co. v.
Ala.
bama,
Warrior,
north
about 7 miles
App.
tiff. in this evidence
We to find fail inference justifying
case a reasonable occasion, with reckless plaintiff on this consciously consequences indifference to wrongful act intentionally, did a produced duty
omitted some known resulted injury. therefore No at re giving action in court’s
quest plaintiff affirma general hypothesis defendant’s
tive con
plea recoupment charging wanton Law v. agent. or her
duct 28; Saks, Salter v. So.2d 283; Carlisle, Smith 206 Ala. Co., Georgia Ry. 165 Ala.
v. Central of
407, 51
The conclusion is clear that presented jury question *6 question negligence
as to the fault
causing injury. this collision and
jury’s question determination of
amply supported by presented.
Application overruled.
Court May 11, 1948.
Rehearing May 25, 1948. Denied Mullins, Richard H. Sanford J.
Cocke; City, appel- both of Alexander lant.