-
This is the second appeal in this case. Harper v. State,
13 Ala. App. 47 ,69 So. 302 . The only matters urged in brief of the appellant by his able counsel are the refusal of charge 6 and the denial of the motion for new trial.Charge 6, though literally quoted from the opinion of the court in Shell v. State,
88 Ala. 17 ,7 So. 40 , is argumentative and was properly refused. Newsom v. State,15 Ala. App. 43 ,72 So. 579 ; Pope v. State,174 Ala. 63 ,57 So. 245 .The testimony of the jurors, on grounds of public policy, was not admissible to impeach the verdict; and the objection to the testimony offered to show misconduct on the part of one of the jurors was properly sustained. Montgomery v. State,
133 Ala. 508 ,32 So. 261 ; Eufaula v. Speight,121 Ala. 613 . 25 So. 1009.We find no error in the proceedings of the court, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Document Info
Docket Number: 8 Div. 448.
Citation Numbers: 75 So. 829, 16 Ala. App. 153
Judges: BROWN, P.J.
Filed Date: 5/8/1917
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/11/2023