Opinion
SC 985.
February 13, 1975.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Shelby County, James H. Sharbutt, J.
Ralph E. Coleman, Birmingham, for appellant.
Counsel should be permitted in arguing his case to the jury to comment on the evidence and any reasonable inferences he might draw therefrom and when testimony in a highway condemnation case shows or tends to show an enhancement to the remaining property it is error for the Court to sustain objection thereto. Alabama Power Company v. Goodwin, 210 Ala. 657, 99 So. 158; Barber Pure Milk Co. v. Holmes, 264 Ala. 45, 84 So.2d 345; Bryson v. State, 264 Ala. 111, 84 So.2d 785; State v. Walker, 281 Ala. 182, 200 So.2d 482; R. C. Bottling Co. v. Sorrells, 290 Ala. 187, 275 So.2d 131; Code of Alabama 1958, as recompiled Title 19 § 14. The trial judge is to be and appear to be impartial and to preside over the trial of a case and it is error for the Court to become involved as an advocate or to give the appearance of partiality or comment on the effect of the evidence. Moulton v. State, 199 Ala. 411, 74 So. 454; Doggett v. Boomer, 210 Ala. 673, 99 So. 81; Cook v. State, 36 Ala. App. 449, 57 So.2d 882; Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; 75 Am.Jur.2d 190; Code of Alabama 1958, as recompiled, Title 7 § 270.
Frank Ellis, Jr., and Conrad M. Fowler, Jr., Columbiana, for appellees.
Where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to the damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal with damages and compensation, cannot work a reversal. Mims v. Mississippi Power Company, 282 Ala. 90, 209 So.2d 375; State of Alabama v. Ward, 293 Ala. 516, 306 So.2d 265 (1975).
This is an appeal by the State of Alabama from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County in a highway condemnation proceeding. The only issue before the court was the amount of compensation due the appellees, James and Marline Pugh, for 5.60 acres of land.
There are eight assignments of error cited by the State. All of these assignments deal with the trial judge's actions in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, limiting the argument of counsel and supposedly injecting himself too fervently into the trial of the cause, to the prejudice of the State. We note, however, that not one of these assignments deals with the proposition that the jury's award was excessive. Because of that fact we are bound to affirm.
In Mims v. Mississippi Power Company, 282 Ala. 90, 209 So.2d 375 (1968), this court reiterated:
"In several cases we have said in effect that where the issue involved in the trial of a condemnation case relates solely to damages and compensation to which a landowner is entitled, and the amount of the verdict of the jury is not questioned on appeal, assignments of error relating to the correctness of jury charges, jury arguments, and rulings on evidence which deal with damages and compensation, cannot work a reversal." (Citations omitted.)
This same point was upheld very recently in the case of State of Alabama v. Hines, 293 Ala. 509, 306 So.2d 259 (Jan. 16, 1975), and in State of Alabama v. Ward, 293 Ala. 516, 306 So.2d 265 (January 9, 1975).
Affirmed.
BLOODWORTH, JONES, ALMON, and EMBRY, JJ., concur.