Knox v. Fair

Citations

• 17 Ala. 503

Syllabus

<p>I. Where, after the introduction of proof, in a trial of the right of property to a slave, tending to show possession by the defendant in execution for three years without demand made and pursued by due course of law, the question at issue is whether such possession continued up to the time when the lien of the execution attached, the defendant having before that time left the State, it is admissible to prove that the rent of a house, occupied by the slave, was, without authority, paid by a third person out of the funds of the defendant, and that he, when informed of it, ratified the act.</p> <p>■2. 'Whether proof of the ostensible insolvency of a deféndant in execution, without evidence of his ability to purchase property, notwithstanding such insolvency, is admissible to show a motive in taking the title to the property, purchased by him, in the name of another? — Queue. However this may be, with such additional evidence, it is clearly competent.</p> <p>3. It is the duty of the court to pay particular attention to every part of the testimony adduced during the progress of a trial, but where many witnesses are examined and the facts detailed by them are numerous, the court commits no error if it charges the jury hypothetically, and refuses to instruct them that there is no testimony tending to prove a particular fact.</p>