Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0081-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(75 South. 629)
    (6 Div. 303.)
    DE BARDELEBEN v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 15, 1917.)
    Criminal Daw <&wkey;1104(3) — Appeal and Error — Review—Transcript.
    Under Acts 1915, p. 815, providing that the refusal of a charge shall not be cause for reversal on appeal, if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially given in a general charge or in requested charges, and providing the manner in which charges must be set out in 'the- transcript on appeal, where the transcript fails to set out the general charge or the written charges given at the request of the defendant, the appellate court will not consider the refused charges.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal' Daw, Cent. Dig. §§ 2776, 2886.]
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.
    Emma DelBardeleben was convicted of grand larceny, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. D. Williams, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

The defendant was triedl on an indictment in two counts, one count charging grand larceny ¡and the other charging receiving stolen property, was convicted of grand larceny, and from the judgment appeals.

The transcript fails to set out the general1 charge of the court or the written charges given at the request of defendant; and in their absence this court will not consider the refused charges. Acts 1915, p. 815.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.