Court Opinion

ID: 9666536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:18:47.727908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:29.923116
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
The complaint does not comply with the requirements of Lashley v. State, supra, by only identifying the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of Alabama as the party to whom the alleged false statement was made.
Bear v. Swift & Co., supra, includes the following comment on the evidence: “The witness, McFarland, had previously stated * * * that the records and books of that business were kept under his supervision- and that he knew the paper exhibited to him was a true and correct original ledger sheet made in the usual course of business.”' *57'The ledger sheet was not offered in evidence and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment because McFarland was allowed to testify as to what it said. Clearly, Saeger’s testimony and Exhibit C should have been excluded under the holding in Bear v. Swift & Co., supra.
Our decision is consistent with Nelson v. Lee, 249 Ala. 549, 32 So.2d 22, and Lathem v. Lee, 249 Ala. 532, 32 So.2d 211.
Application for rehearing overruled.