Court Opinion

ID: 9824655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:05:44.884808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:56.905506
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Counsel for appellee, in their brief on application for rehearing, point out that charge 22, refused to the defendant, uses the word “believe,” while the correct and appropriate term expressing the degree of conviction essential to establish an issue of fact is that the jury must be “reasonably satisfied” ; a criticism not pointed out in briefs and argument on the original submission.
Under the decisions of this court reversible error will not be predicated on the giving or refusal of such charges. Conway v. Robinson, 113 So. 531;1 Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 211 Ala. 1, 100 So. 312; Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank v. Hollind, 200 Ala. 371, 76 So. 287; Jefferson County v. Parker, 211 Ala. 289, 100 So. 338; Oliver’s Garage v. Lowe, 212 Ala. 602, 103 So. 586; Tyler et al. v. Birmingham Realty Co., 207 Ala. 210, 92 So. 264.
Charge 11 was without hypothesis on a belief of the evidence, and its refusal was not reversible error. Walls v. Decatur Fertilizer Co., 215 Ala. 426, 111 So. 214.
We are still of opinion that the court erred in refusing charge 7. This charge in no way deals with or 'affected the issue of wantonness or subsequent negligence, and the giving of this charge would have simplified the real issues in the ease by the elimination of the issue of initial simple negligence.
Application overruled.

 Post, p. 495.