120 So. 147 | Ala. | 1929
No questions as to the sufficiency of the venire or of the action of the court in impaneling the jury are reserved and presented. Hardley v. State,
The record proper has been examined (Howerton v. State,
The judgment and sentence were rendered and pronounced by the court pursuant to the verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and "fix(ing) his penalty at death." Sullivan v. State,
The bill of exceptions must show all exceptions required to be reserved, not presumed. Solnick v. Ballard (Ala. Sup.)
It is true, that under the stated rule an exception is presumed to the action of the court in giving written charges to the opposite party and in denying one's request for written instruction, and is not required to be shown by a bill of exceptions. Sections 6430, 9509, Code. It is also true that, where the appeal is upon the record proper, there being no bill of exceptions, the appellate court cannot review the action of the trial court, in refusing the written charges requested by the defendant, though such charges are set out as a part of the record proper. Paitry v. State,
There being no reversible error disclosed by the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
The sentence was duly suspended pending defendant's appeal — though no exceptions are shown to have been reserved (Ex parte Mancil,
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. *659
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, BROWN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
SAYRE, J., concurs in the result.