From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanford v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 15, 1923
96 So. 646 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)

Opinion

6 Div. 118.

May 15, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Fort, Judge.

Henry Sanford was convicted of grand larcency, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robert G. Tate, of Birmingham, for appellant.

No brief reached the Reporter.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

No brief reached the Reporter.


This defendant was tried and convicted for grand larceny. The property alleged to have been stolen consisted of an automobile belonging to one Abner F. Horton. He was duly sentenced to hard labor for the county, and appeals.

There is no bill of exceptions, and in the absence of same we cannot review the ruling of the court in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. For like reasons and for the further reason, also, that the court's oral charge is not set out in the record, we cannot consider the refused charges.

No error is apparent on the record, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Sanford v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 15, 1923
96 So. 646 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
Case details for

Sanford v. State

Case Details

Full title:SANFORD v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: May 15, 1923

Citations

96 So. 646 (Ala. Crim. App. 1923)
19 Ala. App. 242

Citing Cases

Jiles v. State

It is true, that under the stated rule an exception is presumed to the action of the court in giving written…

Beecham v. State

Code 1923, § 6433; Ettore v. State, 214 Ala. 99, 106 So. 508. In absence of a bill of exceptions, the refusal…