History
  • No items yet
midpage
Seals v. State
239 Ala. 244
Ala.
1940
Check Treatment

The utterances of the Court of Appeals, after remandment to that court, on the question of the right of cross-examination appear, in general, to be sound. No specific ruling is noted on that subject, but the court's utterances were predicated on a finding of fact, therefore within the rule that this court will not on certiorari review the Court of Appeals, on a finding of fact or the application of the law to the facts.

The sustention of the State's objection to the defendant's questions to defendant's witness, Paul Rowe, "You did not steal that cattle did you?" "Did you ever conspire with anybody to help them steal the cows?" could well be rested on the ground that they were leading and called for a conclusion within the province of the jury.

The writ will be denied. Ex parte Hill (City of Tuscaloosa v. Hill), 194 Ala. 559, 69 So. 598.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Seals v. State
Court Name: Supreme Court of Alabama
Date Published: Mar 14, 1940
Citation: 239 Ala. 244
Docket Number: 8 Div. 41.
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.