Arnold v. Town of Hamilton

Alabama Court of Appeals

Arnold v. Town of Hamilton

109 So. 896, 21 Ala. App. 548, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 293

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 26, 1926

Docket6 Div. 963.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 So. 896 (Arnold v. Town of Hamilton) 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

Arnold v. Town of Hamilton, 109 So. 896, 21 Ala. App. 548, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 293 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the terms of an ordinance of the town of Hamilton prohibiting the possession of certain liquors. We will treat the assignments of error after the order in which they are argued by his counsel on this appeal.

-The complaint filed in the circuit court was defective for failing to state the substance of the ordinance which was alleged to have been violated. Rosenberg v. City of Selma, 168 Ala. 198, 52 So. 742. However, none of the grounds of demurrer filed took this point, and there was no error in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. It was not subject to any of the defects urged. Turner v. Town of Lineville, 2 Ala. App. 454, 56 So. 603. Code 1923, § 1992.

The written charges, which were requested by defendant, and refused, were, in so far as they stated correct propositions of law, in our opinion, substantially covered by the oral charge of the court in connection with the written charges given at defendant’s request. We think it made no difference whether the liquid in question was “suitable” for beverage purposes or not, if it was in fact used as a beverage, and if it was a liquid prohibited by law. For that matter, most of the liquids now giving basis for so many prosecutions for the violation of our prohibition statutes are not really “suitable” for beverage purposes.

The assignments of error not covered by what we have said above are insisted updh in argument only in the most cursory way, arid we do not feel called upon to discuss thein seriatim. Suffice to say -that we have examined them carefully and are not persuaded that prejudicial error pervaded any of trie rulings underlying same. The • appellant appears to have been tried fairly, and the judgment is affirmed. '

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the terms of an ordinance of the town of Hamilton prohibiting the possession of certain liquors. We will treat the assignments of error after the order in which they are argued by his counsel on this appeal.

-The complaint filed in the circuit court was defective for failing to state the substance of the ordinance which was alleged to have been violated. Rosenberg v. City of Selma, 168 Ala. 198, 52 So. 742. However, none of the grounds of demurrer filed took this point, and there was no error in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. It was not subject to any of the defects urged. Turner v. Town of Lineville, 2 Ala. App. 454, 56 So. 603. Code 1923, § 1992.

The written charges, which were requested by defendant, and refused, were, in so far as they stated correct propositions of law, in our opinion, substantially covered by the oral charge of the court in connection with the written charges given at defendant’s request. We think it made no difference whether the liquid in question was “suitable” for beverage purposes or not, if it was in fact used as a beverage, and if it was a liquid prohibited by law. For that matter, most of the liquids now giving basis for so many prosecutions for the violation of our prohibition statutes are not really “suitable” for beverage purposes.

The assignments of error not covered by what we have said above are insisted updh in argument only in the most cursory way, arid we do not feel called upon to discuss thein seriatim. Suffice to say -that we have examined them carefully and are not persuaded that prejudicial error pervaded any of trie rulings underlying same. The • appellant appears to have been tried fairly, and the judgment is affirmed. '

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 896, 21 Ala. App. 548, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-town-of-hamilton-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack