BENTON MERCANTILE CO. v. BOYETTE

(81 South. 856) BENTON MERCANTILE CO. v. BOYETTE. (4 Div. 576.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. April 22, 1919. Rehearing Denied May 13, 1919.) 1. Trial <&wkey;>143 — Taking Case from Jury-Conflicting Evidence. Where there was a sharp conflict in the evidence, the affirmative charge was properly refused. 2. Appeal and Error <&wkey;502(l) —■ Bill of Exceptions — Motion. •• Where no exception is shown to have been reserved to court’s action in denying motion for new trial, and Acts 1915, p. 722, requiring bill of exceptions to contain evidence and ruling on motion for new trial, has not been complied with, ruling of court on motion will not be reviewed on appeal. Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A. B. Poster, Judge. Action by Ester Boyette against the Benton Mercantile Company in trover, conversion, and detinue. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. Baldwin & Murphy, of- Andalusia, for appellant. A. Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellee. [MAJORITY — BRICKEN, J.] BRICKEN, J. Assignment of error No. 1 is based upon a question of fact, and relates to the ruling of the court in refusing the affirmative charge to appellant. Upon an examination of all the evidence it appears that it was in sharp conflict and for that reason the affirmative charge was properly refused. The remaining assignment of error relates to the ruling of the court in refusing to grant appellant a new trial. No exception is shown to have been reserved to the action of the court in denying the motion, nor is there a compliance with the law relative to the right to have reviewed the ruling of the court in this connection. Acts 1915, p. 722; Ross v. State, 78 South. 309; Powell v. Folmar (Sup.) 78 South. 47. This question, therefore, is not presented; and, no error appearing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed. 16 Ala. App. 393. 201 Ala. 271.