CHANNELL v. STATE

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 672.

Attorney(S)

William J. Foster, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant. A case tried in the circuit court on appeal from the county court should be tried de novo, and it is error for the court to charge the jury, or state to the jury, where the case originated. Code 1923, §§ 3843, 3844. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The statement of the court was a statement of the law, and was without error. Hall v. State, 19 Ala. App. 178, 95 So. 904; 4 Michie's Ala. Dig. 324.

Judges

SAMFORD, J.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

6 Div. 672.

Attorney(S)

William J. Foster, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant. A case tried in the circuit court on appeal from the county court should be tried de novo, and it is error for the court to charge the jury, or state to the jury, where the case originated. Code 1923, §§ 3843, 3844. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The statement of the court was a statement of the law, and was without error. Hall v. State, 19 Ala. App. 178, 95 So. 904; 4 Michie's Ala. Dig. 324.

Judges

SAMFORD, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

CHANNELL v. STATE.

SAMFORD, J.

In his charge to the jury, the court stated that the prosecution originated in the county court and came to the circuit court by appeal. To this exception was taken. In cases of this character the jurisdiction of the circuit court is acquired by virtue of the statute, and therefore the court was not in error in so charging the jury. Hall's Case, 19 Ala. App. 178, 95 So. 904.

The foregoing is the only insistence of error appearing in brief, but, as required by statute, we have read the record and find no error of a prejudicial nature.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

CHANNELL v. STATE.

Comments