Court Opinion

ID: 9939038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 19:05:02.397962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:43.617178
License: Public Domain

In its opinion reversing and remanding this cause to us the Supreme Court has disagreed with our conclusion that the attempted assignments of error were joint.
We are yet of the opinion that assignments (b) and (c) are palpably insufficient to invite review, and since the Supreme Court has expressed no opinion as to our conclusions on these assignments, we adhere to our former views.
This then leaves only assignment a, which alleges as error the action of the court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.
The Supreme Court states in its opinion:
 "A general assignment of error on appeal grounded on the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for a new trial is sufficient to invite a review of the ruling on the basis of any ground well stated in the motion and properly argued by appellant; that is, when the motion for new trial is sufficient to specify the precise error alleged to have occurred, a general assignment of error on appeal for refusing the motion is sufficient to bring up for review those matters so precisely set out in the motion. See also Peoples Tel. Co. v. Buchanon, 37 Ala. App. 371, 374, 68 So.2d 854. Cf. Groover v. Darden, 259 Ala. 607, 68 So.2d 28."
Even so, only those assignments brought forward in appellant's brief will be considered on appeal. This is fundamental and requires no citation.
Therefore, while an assignment to the effect that the lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial is an indirect assignment of each ground of the motion, a reviewing court will only review those grounds of the motion brought forward in the brief. Such is the import of the authorities cited in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The appellant's brief consists of a "Statement of Facts", a "Statement of Law", and "Argument".
The "Statement of Law" consists of some four propositions setting forth general legal principles.
The entire "Argument" is as follows:
 "The appellant in this cause was very much prejudiced in this cause by the repeated admission of testimony by the appellee of so called malicious acts committed by the appellant after the purported vagrancy charges was sworn out. Now furthermore the appellant was prejudiced by the testimony herein concerning a crop with which she was not connected.
 "The appellant herein gave the Justice of the Peace the true facts concerning this matter, she only testified to such facts before him; and he either found the appellee guilty or bound him over to the action Grand Jury. (There is much confusion in this testimony on this point.) Furthermore the said appellant was physically unable to testify before the said Grand Jury.
 "If a trial or hearing was had in this cause, since the Justice Court had the original jurisdiction of the vagrancy charge, it should have been appealed to the Circuit Court. And the court had no jurisdiction to render a judgment binding the appellee over to the action of the Grand Jury. In conclusion it might be said, especially since *Page 269 
the appellee joined issue and introduced in issue the charge of adultery or fornication, that the appellant had good probable cause for believing the appellee guilty."
We can find nothing in the above argument in anywise shedding light on the error assigned in assignment a. Such defect prevents our review.
Affirmed.