History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ex Parte Thorne
105 So. 711
Ala.
1925
Check Treatment

We think the statement in the opinion of the Court of Appeals that refused charges requested in writing by defendant cannot be reviewed, where the bill of exceptions fails to disclose that it contains all the evidence, is too broad and needs some qualification. There may be refused charges which should properly be reviewed, though all the evidence does not appear, such as charges in no manner affected by that fact. Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 145 Ala. 351, 40 So. 965.

But the petition and brief in this cause do not point out that any refused charges in the instant case come within that class, and none of the charges are here discussed. Supreme Court rule 44, vol. 4, Code 1923. Under these circumstances we assume, in favor of the ruling of the Court of Appeals, that the refused charges are not reviewable for the reason pointed out by that court.

Let the writ be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Ex Parte Thorne
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Oct 15, 1925
Citation: 105 So. 711
Docket Number: 6 Div. 512.
Court Abbreviation: Ala.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.