*1 confusing instruction C Refused State, 31 Bringhurst misleading. v. Ala.App. 608, 20 885. So.2d did the accused conviction of A upon depend E witness; D charges therefore prem a false predicated abstract State, 140 Ala. Gregory v.

ise. State, 25.9; Baxley So.

90 So. 434. Segars v. approved it there

State, but testified only

appears one witness prosecution.

behalf indicated, ordered

For errors re- judgment below

versed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

35 So.2d 568 SPIZMAN. CHRIST v. Div. 560. Appeals of Alabama.

Court of 16, 1948.

March May 25,

Rehearing Denied *2 many

The presented evidence was aspects conflicting other undisputed, but points. material appellant The brief filed counsel for by opinion inadequate is in our on which to base a review of case. consists of “Statement of Facts” included which is statement of Law,” “Undisputed Facts; Propositions of propositions forth. which are set “Propositions” sup- first three

ported by State, citation of cases from this fourth by citation of two Louisiana remaining cases. The “Proposi- seven tions” unsupported. propositions These by are followed “Argument.” paragraph The first of this argument consists largely of inferences drawn by from the facts appellant’s coun- sel. We conclude from its verdict that the jury drew other inferences from evi- dence.

The remaining portion is as follows: “Propositions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 deals negligence simple both and wanton. Assignments 7, 8, 10, 11, error 14, 15, 16 and 17 deal or are founded upon negligence simple either or wanton. Waid, Jr., and L. P. P. A. Nash both assignment “Under of error 2 we Oneonta, appellant. for clearly admissible Rogers, Birmingham, appel- Geo. permitted should have been by court lee. give experience her in driving an auto- mobile. As we think this was error where HARWOOD, Judge. question negligence of. arose. grew The suit below out of an automo- opinion “In our the giving of charge below, Plaintiff bile collision. who assignment set out in of error here, 7 at appellee filed her suit against request clearly defendant, error. appellant here, on com- a- gave general court charge for the plaint containing simple count negli- plaintiff as plea to the wanton of the de- complaint gence. To the defendant fendant. the admitted evidence issue, pleaded general pleas and two plaintiff herself and her recoupment husband who charging wanton set-off car, driving if there simple were no negligence negligence respec- wantonness that action I do not tively. see the party unless ad- jury was in favor verdict he intentionally mitted that did it. This damages plaintiff, being her assessed at required negligence. wanton Judgment was entered $500.00. pursuant to said verdict. “We insist that was requested by the new be- defendant and Defendant’s motion for trial refused been given have duly appeal filed overruled it was error for the court perfected same. court. refuse 18, main shall contain recital of condensed assignment “As pre- new trial evidence narrative form as for a grounds in the motion concisely. sent is the the substance the court overruled *3 except to accurate above, The statement be taken be will same has been mentioned as 1, 3, 4, decision, op- 2, 5 and sufficient the assignments for unless to error as of posite party in shall make the court brief I not to criticize the his 6. like necessary Fol- corrections things place took under as- or additions. but the lowing statement, prejudicial shall con- signment very the brief of error 1 was tain, separate rights the under a of each heading to the matter and in on, prop- separately action error relied numbered motion for new trial included concisely, points, court, opinion, ositions which, in our the or stated of the elaboration, together partic- court on without or granted should have support with authorities relied on in the ular motion. cases, of them names of citing the 3, 4, 6 “Assignments 5 and are error of parties given, book must be with the assignments exceptions on to the Court’s page reported.” oral in the mo- were set out as, think, separate heading tion and which we statement under a an the of each error relied in the error. the laws State of on of mentioned pertains dog- generally there is no as a above rule what is Alabama such to charged Jury. “Specifications fall Court the called as the Fur- the of Error” ther, many In our have laws of the State of Ala- brief. cases courts bama, “Assignments” used apparently have been no moral the term synonymous “Specifications as Er- damage of victory without the assessment of coun- any referring for ror” when briefs of verdict either to assignments or defendant sel than of er- in the Court rather to below. proper. ror record in the respectfully “We insist this cause on be reversed and remanded stated As this court F. J. many hereinabove out errors set Jr., etc., Snellings Jones, Malvin 33 So. v. ;1 cause.” 371, 2d 372 appeal analogous out of an suing is appeals duty In criminal it is the . to institution of new suit The as apparent of all court consider errors signment place of errors take the record, of the assigned whether or not. assign bill. declaration 389, or office of Section Title Code of Alabama appellate of error to inform ments is appeals only assigned 1940. In civil errors appellee precise court and the er will be considered and where the brief of on. rors relied Kinnon v. Louisville & direct the counsel does not Co., 397; N. R. 187 Life is attention of court to what deemed Casualty Ins. & Co. of Wo error, required Tennessee v. appellate is not mack, Ala.App. 6, 151 26 So. certiorari and cast search record about for 70, 151 assign denied 228 Ala. So. 880. An specified in the brief. errors Morton not succinctly ment Clark, error which does not Ala.App. 439, 65 al. 10 et complained point out error of with 408. precision sufficient clearness and will not essential form and elements of As to appeal. Harden, be considered Inc. v. Supreme brief Court Rule Harden, Er So. 94. Appendix, Tit. provides Code assigned not rors will be not reviewed. follows: as @=»719 Appeal Error, Ala.Dig., (1). “Appellant’s shall contain brief a con- hurry appeal perfecting “In so much of the record cise statement practice lawyers assign every exception is usual fully error presents might all matters that even on, error referring pages relied to the of the as faintly Upon study meritorious. further transcript. insufficiency If the the evi- preparing while brief he conclude finding, verdict his dence to sustain the or that, statement, anxiety fully pos- law, assigned, cover all fact is his p. Ante, speci- of such unavailing in- rors has if he assignments, in his sible errors fied These he errors is without merit. untenable. cluded some carrying not simply abandon is free to and over- grouping result argument, them in his brief assignments forward lapping grouping that errors corollary the rule supra, for as a argument, mentioned ap- assigned will not be considered not assignments combination all assignments proposition that peal Clearly several group. of error into one considered specified in brief are merit. without assignments of such as abandoned.” discussion above In view of the *4 to be opinion due our this cause is ap in a a brief civil The office of ordered. affirmed it is so and peal to under appellate court is to aid the give and quickly the involved stand issues Affirmed. un adequate an basis for such such court Rehearing On sifting of derstanding. progressive A support applica- In in of his his brief discarding proper, contents of record : rehearing appellant’s counsel states tion for portions proper con necessary to those not opinion facts “In of statement our clusion, highlighting and the acts of appellant’s of this in brief submission appellant feels lower court of which the complied the follow- technically cause with complain cause be he to has portion ing Supreme Court Rule of every adequate An ultimate of brief. aim Appendix: Code Tit. 7 specification a of the errors relied “ insufficiency to the evidence ‘If of refining process. in necessary step such finding, in fact sustain the verdict or Actually, specified ap- no errors are in law, assigned, the statement shall con- propositions pellant’s eleven brief. The tain a recital condensed of properly set forth cannot be so considered. present form so the sub- narrative as to repetition ” Since mere of the as a concisely.’ stance and signments appellant’s brief opinion “In our court overruled compliance sufficient with Rule phase of the case. motion for re- 10 as to statement of the errors relied sepa- assigned, hearing in below on, 24 Wright, W. S. & see Wiles Son v. rately severally, overruling and of that certainly law, motion and which were as fact assign general reference in bulk to such assignment of to this court.” made errors portion done in that ments as firmly opinion We are still “Argument,” and out brief labeled set appellant filed the brief cannot be so considered. above present cause was defective failed following govern- thinkWe that rules review. We will this court matters for ing contents and form of presenta- condone this defective however appropriately also mentioned brief reviewing extent of tion to the the suffi- present pertaining the defects in the ciency of evidence fact in law to case. brief verdict. sustain the merely A brief complaining in appellant sets out the facts in this rulings terms of made the basis of broad follows: case as error in effect aban assignments of works “Undisputed alleged Evidence: ac This assignments. such donment of Western happened in County, Blount cident Ala al., Tel. Emerson et Union Co. v. Ala. bama, Warrior, north about 7 miles App. 69 So. 335. Alabama, Highway paved This is a argument A mere statement asphalt top, feet highway wide on rulings brief were erroneous bridge the accident each side more than the amounts reservation no bridge bridge, was a narrow occurred. exceptions Mitchell Gam thereto. and 90 feet long. wide There feet 17x/i bill, 37 So. 402. bridge on the back signs on the were bridge giv end of the highway from each that a settled well is further bridge. The de- notice of narrow specified er- properly joint traveling High- some 20 the time she on the feet or car was more at fendant’s entered way Birmingham plaintiff’s from into the vehicle. north swerved plaintiff’s Cullman traveling car from was excerpts We from following Highway Birmingham said along toward il- highly of the defendant North bridge entered the from the luminating : plaintiff’s pulling end. The car was “Q. just State said what between trailer plaintiff’s car feet wide. The you there when she back about came car, car, a regular the defendant’s wreck? A. The I can remem- thing first being approximately each feet wide. On me, ber Spizman you always Mrs. asked bridge there was bases side was, Lady, drive My that fast? answer post bridge around the at each end I happened, I don’t know how this 4 to 6 thereof which out some extended terribly sorry hap- am the accident inches. pened. driving right on her Rogers: you “Mr. That didn’t know how speed at a some 40 to 50 road happened you terribly sorry were per miles hour bridge said entered happened ? *5 and plaintiff the car and trailer of the “The exactly Witness: That I what bridge. was some distance from the said.” plaintiff the admitted the and On cross examination: husband, her plaintiff’s the car was travel- “Q. You don’t Jury tell the that Mr. speed at a of 30 miles hour and Spizman and highway Mrs. told patrol- the right pave- of the close to his side over man you that hit middle the of the bridge bridge approaching and never ment in said you before got across, you? A. accident, the al- before slowed down discussed, I am sorry I do not remember plain- car and the the driver of the though who brought up. it coming the car tiff herself saw bridge it a narrow knew and “Q. you and that hit the middle the Did distance before No, some had'known bridge? I did A. not. reaching bridge the driver admitted the and Well, “Q. did you tell them on that lengths him it would have taken that 1% you that A. I occasion did? have. stopped to have of the Courthouse room * * * * * * speed traveling. his car the at “Q. I you And believe told us while car entering the ago you Spizman told Mr. Mrs. that bridge, testimony, her saw the other bridge bridge there on that near the or very frightened car became coming you just that thing didn’t know the how that trailer approaching happened, car right? isn’t A. That that it, bridge before she cleared exactly end of the I what said. car corner swerved her around the “Q. And that is the truth about which was between bridge feet aild you thing, that whole don’t know how it paved than the narrower on side road happened, right? No, isn’t A. I striking and after the other car turned right. don’t exactly post end around with rear on a on the “Q. Well, true— I say is that A. will road paved and the side of end front this, I—May say that I think the whole toward, the center of turned road. happened quickly that none of us Appellant’s car was struck the left one, really you three, tell two appellee’s car front between the door happened just way.” that it fender on left rear side her picture drawn from the evidence car.” panicky clear that defendant became approach plaintiff’s To these facts it should be added over the of the that the auto- early part bridge occurred mobile. accident She had entered the at preponderance speed per afternoon. The of between 40 evi- miles hour. Application tends to of the brakes dence also show that caused her defend- car emerged plaintiff’s. had into the bridge ant’s from the car swerve evidence So as disclosed far or willful basis for inference is no plain- part wanton conduct

tiff. in this evidence

We to find fail inference justifying

case a reasonable occasion, with reckless plaintiff on this consciously consequences indifference to wrongful act intentionally, did a produced duty

omitted some known resulted injury. therefore No at re giving action in court’s

quest plaintiff affirma general hypothesis defendant’s

tive con

plea recoupment charging wanton Law v. agent. or her

duct 28; Saks, Salter v. So.2d 283; Carlisle, Smith 206 Ala. Co., Georgia Ry. 165 Ala.

v. Central of

407, 51

The conclusion is clear that presented jury question *6 question negligence

as to the fault

causing injury. this collision and

jury’s question determination of

amply supported by presented.

Application overruled.

35 So.2d 576 v. STATE. BAGGETT 5 Div. 246. Appeals Alabama.

Court May 11, 1948.

Rehearing May 25, 1948. Denied Mullins, Richard H. Sanford J.

Cocke; City, appel- both of Alexander lant.