TUCKER v. STATE

(84 South. 859) TUCKER v. STATE. (5 Div. 315.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. Jan. 13, 1920. Criminal Law &wkey;>1122(5) — Written Charges Refused not Reviewable, in Absence of Oral Charge. In the absence of oral charge of the trial court, the written refused charges will not be. reviewed. <g5»I’or other eases see same topic and KT5Y-NUMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes Appeal from Circuit Court, Chambers County ; S. L. Brewer, Judge. Fred Tucker was convicted of bastardy, and he appeáls. Affirmed. J. A. Hines, of Lafayette, and N. D. Den-son & Sons, of Opelika, for appellant; Counsel discuss assignments of error based on refusal of requested charges, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to here set them out. , J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The oral charge of the court not being in the record, the appellate court will not consider the refused charges. 200 Ala. 656, 77 South. 30. [MAJORITY — MERRITT, J.] MERRITT, J. The questions raised in the appeal are predicated upon the refusal of the trial judge to give certain written charges requested by -the defendaiit. While it is noted in the record that the clerk will here set out the court’s oral charge, an examination of the record fails to disclose the same, and the ruling of this and the Supreme Court is to the effect that, in the absence of the oral charge of. the court, the written refused charges will not be reviewed, in that they may have been covered by the oral charge; in fact the presumption being they were so covered, in the absence of the oral charge. Climer et al. v. St. Clair et al., 200 Ala. 656, 77 South. 30. The proceedings and judgment appearing to be regular, the case must be affirmed. Affirmed.