33 Ala. 145 | Ala. | 1858
However “ clear, distinct and intelligent ” may have been the manner in which Dr. Tanner testified, he was the witness of the plaintiff, and his testimony on his direct examination was material; and beyond doubt, it was the right of the defendants, on cross examination, to ask him if he was not then “ under the influence of ardent spirits.” “His powers of discernment, memory, and description,” were proper matters for the consideration of the jury, whose duty it was to determine the just weight and value of his testimony; and if he was under the influence of ardent spirits at the time he was
As the question in relation to Canty’s testimony will probably not be presented in the same shape on another trial, we decline to decide it.
The question raised in this - court, as to the validity of some of the legacies, does not appear to have been raised in the court below, either by the pleadings or charges.
For the error of the court below on the first point considered in this opinion, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.