Court Opinion

ID: 9866108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:23:27.981363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:12:02.979417
License: Public Domain

O’NIELL, O. J.,
dissents from the ruling on Bill No. 3, taken in connection with the ruling on Bill No. 5; dissents from the ruling that the question of sufficiency of the evidence of dangerous character or previous threats of the deceased is a question of law, to be decided by the trial judge, etc.; and is of the opinion that the Act 222 of 1926 is not valid, because an amendment proposed in the Senate was rejected, but the bill was after-wards voted on in the House of Representatives as if the amendment had been adopted in the Senate. See Senate Journal, pp. 921 and 926, and House Journal, p. 1234, July 1, 1926.