Beeson v. Moore
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. A. H. Alston. Action for damages for deceit in sale of chattel. cited 1 Greenleaf on Ev. § 370, 418; 29 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, pp. 616, 617; Porter v. Cotney, 3 Ala. 315; 8 L. K. A. 837. cited Blocker v. Burness, 2 Ala. ced; Porter v. Cotney, 3 Ala. 314; State v. Washington , 42 L. B. A. 553.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCLELLAN, C. J.
— The competency of Beeson, the plaintiff, as a witness was challenged by the defendant. The onus ivas on the defendant to' support his challenge' — to show that Beeson Avas not competent. To this end it was shown that Beeson believed in God but did not believe in reAvards and punishments after death: His belief was “that all the punishment a man gets is in this world.” It will suffice for the disposition of this case to say that under the strictest vieAY of the law on this subject that has ever obtained in Alabama the witness was not shown to be incompetent. He was excluded because he did…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blocker v. BurnessSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Porter v. CotneySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
3Cited by6 opinions
- Marshall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Birmingham Railway L. & P. Co. v. JungSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Duncan v. City of BirminghamCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1980
- Pruitt v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1936
- Goolsby v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.