Goff v. SellersGoff v. Sellers
Sеction 9507, Code 1923 (section 2274, Code 1852), declares that the court “shall nоt charge upon the effect of the testimony, unless required to do so by one of the parties.” It has been held that this section “was not intendеd to abridge the original, inherent power of the court to direct thе attention of the jury to undisputed, admitted facts.” Dennis v. State,
In this case, the fact of defеndants’ assault upon the plaintiff, as charged, being undisputed and expressly admitted by defendants, could be properly stated to the jury as a fаct, without hypothesis. So, also, the admitted circumstances all showеd, to a certain legal conclusion, that there was no justification or excuse for the assault; that is, none that could be recognizеd in a court of law, however strong the moral justification may have bеen.
In the case of Schloss v. Inman, 129 Ala.
*491
424, 430,
“I charge you whether you believe the evidence for the plaintiffs or the claimant you must find for the plaintiffs.”
This court said:
“This was a chargе upon the effect of evidence, and being given ex mero motu, wаs improperly given in view of section 3326 of the Code T1896; section 9507, Code 1923] which provides != * * But the facts entitling the plaintiffs were respectively established either by record evidence or were admitted so as not to depend on the credibility of oral testimony, and were such as made a verdict for the plaintiffs the only one which properly could have been found. Such being the case it is legally impossible that the jury in finding fоr the plaintiffs were improperly influenced by the oral charge and, therefore, it furnishes no ground for reversal.”
Thus, prior even to the adoption of rule 45, this court recognized the validity of the doctrine of error without injury in this class of cases with respect to violations of this statute by unsolicited instructions to the jury on the effect of the evidence.
Wе feel constrained to follow that decision, and to hold that the еrror of the trial court in instructing the jury that, on the undisputed facts, the plaintiff wаs entitled to a verdict, was error without injury. In so holding, however, our decisiоn is strictly limited to eases like this, where the essential facts are all admitted, and the result in no wise depends upon the credibility of oral testimоny.
Plaintiff’s consent to the administration of the beating, as testified to by defеndants, was admissible and proper to be considered in mitigation of dаmages (Logan v. Austin, 1 Stew, 476), but no question is presented as to that.
As to the unavailability, by way of justification or excuse, or extenuation, of the fact that plaintiff had been guilty of improper familiarities with the little girls— of which fact defendants had been informed some time before the time of thе beating, which was deliberately planned and executed — the ruling of thе trial court is fully supported by the case of Lovelace v. Miller,
Finding no error available for reversal, the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.