Aldridge v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Aldridge v. State

139 So. 119, 24 Ala. App. 582, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 12

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 12, 1932·No. 3 Div. 696.·Published

Opinion

RIOS, J.

The prosecution originated in the inferior court by affidavit.

It was unnecessary, the charge being a violation of the statutes pertaining to prohibited liquors, etc., to file any “complaint,” in the circuit court, to which the case had been carried by appeal. Code 1923, § 4646.

There were no exceptions reserved on the talcing of testimony, no written charges requested and refused.

There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment of conviction based thereon.

We find nowhere prejudicial error, and said judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RIOS, J.

The prosecution originated in the inferior court by affidavit.

It was unnecessary, the charge being a violation of the statutes pertaining to prohibited liquors, etc., to file any “complaint,” in the circuit court, to which the case had been carried by appeal. Code 1923, § 4646.

There were no exceptions reserved on the talcing of testimony, no written charges requested and refused.

There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment of conviction based thereon.

We find nowhere prejudicial error, and said judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Aldridge v. State, 139 So. 119, 24 Ala. App. 582, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 12 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

139 So. 119 (Aldridge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.