Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0401-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MERRITT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(92 South. 17)
    BRADFORD v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 855.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 17, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1922.)
    1. Criminal lav; <©=31116.— Court of Appeals cannot consider demurrers where judgment entry does not recite that they were presented or acted upon.
    Where demurrers are set out in the record, but the judgment entry does not recite that they were presented to, considered, or acted upon by the court, the Court of Appeals cannot consider them.
    2. Criminal law <©=3 1090(14) — Refusal of written charges will not be reviewed in absence of bills of exceptions.
    Where there is no bill of exceptions in the transcript, the refusal to give certain written charges asked by the defendant will not be reviewed.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; H. P. Heflin, Judge.
    E. C. Bradford was convicted for failing or refusing to dip tick-infested cattle, and he appeals.
    Affiimed.
    Horace C. Alford, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    The court erred in overruling demurrers to the affidavit and in refusing the charges requested. 17 Ala. App. 419, 84 South. 883.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   MERRITT, J.

On appeal from the Jefferson county court of misdemeanor, to the circuit court, the defendant was convicted under a complaint which charged that he failed to dip his cattle after being warned to do so.

There are certain demurrers set out in the record, but the judgment entry does not recite that they were presented to, considered, or acted upon by the court, and, this being true, this court cannot consider them. Birmingham, E. & B. R. R. Co. v. Hoskins, 14 Ala. App. 254, 69 South. 339; Yarbrough v. State, 15 Ala. App. 460, 73 South. 830.

However, the questions raised by the demurrers have been decided adversely to the defendant in the case of Williams v. State ante, p. 83, 89 South. 97.

There is no bill of exceptions in the transcript; consequently, the court’s refusal to give certain written charges asked by the defendant will not be reviewed. 13 Mitehie’s Digest, 795; Moran v. State, 15 Ala. App. 379, 73 So. 748; Yarbrough v. State, 15 Ala. App. 460, 73 So. 830; Ward v. State, 15 Ala. App. 598, 74 So. 727; Graham v. State, 16 Ala. App. 87, 75 So. 635.

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

Affirmed. 
      <®=3Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes