History
  • No items yet
midpage
Nicholson v. State
149 Ala. 61
Ala.
1907
Check Treatment
ANDERSON, J. —

The action of the trial court in permitting the state to examine the witness Smallwood, af*63ter the defendant liad closed Ids evidence, was discretionary, notwithstanding the evidence was not in rebuttal, and should more properly have been brought out before the state rested. — Braham v. State, 143 Ala. 28, 38 South. 919; Riley v. State, 88 Ala. 193, 7 South. 149; 8 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 132.

So much of the argument of the solicitor as was objected to was legitimate as a reply to the argument of counsel for the defendant, and the trial court committed no error in refusing to exclude the same. — Bardin v. State, 143 Ala. 74, 38 South. 833.

The judgment of the city court is affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Nicholson v. State
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Feb 7, 1907
Citation: 149 Ala. 61
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.