Case ID: ala-app_16/html/0187-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKEN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(76 South. 471)
    RICHEY v. STATE.
    (7 Div. 450.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 1917.)
    Criminal Law <&wkey; 1090(14) — Appeal and Error-Bill of Exceptions — Necessity—Instructions.
    Where time for signing and filing bill of exceptions in criminal ease has expired, and there appears no bill of exceptions in the record, the Court of Appeals will not review charges given and refused.
    Appeal from City Court of Anniston; Thos. W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.
    Ed Richey was convicted of the crime of seduction, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    , P. F. Wharton and. Harvey A. Emerson, both of Anniston, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was indicted for seduction. The indictment changes that Ed Richey, alias, etc., a man, did, by means of temptation, deception, arts, flattery, or promise of marriage, seduce Margarte Tidwell, an unmarried woman, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama. The defendant was convicted on October 16, 1916. The appeal was taken on October 18, 1916. The time for signing and filing:' of the bill of exceptions having expired, arid there appearing no bill of exceptions in the record,' this court will not review the given and refused charges. Mitchell v. State, 15 Ala. App. 109, 72 South. 507; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 South. 36.

The record is without error, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed'.