Armstrong v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Armstrong v. State

103 So. 388, 20 Ala. App. 546, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 66

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1925

Docket8 Div. 262.

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 388 (Armstrong v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. State, 103 So. 388, 20 Ala. App. 546, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 66 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

*547 RIGE, J.

The defendant was convicted on both counts under an indictment charging him with distilling prohibited liquor and with unlawfully being in possession of a still.

Complaint is made here that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting, over defendant’s objection, testimony to the effect that a still which was found by the officers near defendant’s premises “fitted the eyes of a stove in defendant’s residence.” In the first place, no objection was interposed to the question calling for the testimony, and in the second place, this identical proposition has heretofore been by this court adjudicated adversely to the contention of appellant. Taylor v. State, 18 Ala. App. 439, 93 So. 305. Consequently' there was no error in this action of the court.

The testimony in the case, we think, and ■hold, brings it fairly within the rule laid down in Glaze v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 629. 1 It follows that the trial court properly refused the general affirmative charge requested by defendant.

The statements contained .in the oral charge of the court, of which complaint is here made, cannot be reviewed by reason of the fact that no exception was reserved in the manner prescribed by law. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., Montgomery v. State, 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785.

There appearing no prejudicial error in the record, let the case be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 7.

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

*547 RIGE, J.

The defendant was convicted on both counts under an indictment charging him with distilling prohibited liquor and with unlawfully being in possession of a still.

Complaint is made here that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting, over defendant’s objection, testimony to the effect that a still which was found by the officers near defendant’s premises “fitted the eyes of a stove in defendant’s residence.” In the first place, no objection was interposed to the question calling for the testimony, and in the second place, this identical proposition has heretofore been by this court adjudicated adversely to the contention of appellant. Taylor v. State, 18 Ala. App. 439, 93 So. 305. Consequently' there was no error in this action of the court.

The testimony in the case, we think, and ■hold, brings it fairly within the rule laid down in Glaze v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 629. 1 It follows that the trial court properly refused the general affirmative charge requested by defendant.

The statements contained .in the oral charge of the court, of which complaint is here made, cannot be reviewed by reason of the fact that no exception was reserved in the manner prescribed by law. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., Montgomery v. State, 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785.

There appearing no prejudicial error in the record, let the case be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 7.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 388, 20 Ala. App. 546, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack