Atkins v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Atkins v. State

122 So. 174, 219 Ala. 258, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 178

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 2, 1929

Docket6 Div. 257.

StatusPublished

This text of 122 So. 174 (Atkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkins v. State, 122 So. 174, 219 Ala. 258, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 178 (Ala. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

An automobile was caught flagrante delicto and condemned as haying been employed in the illegal transportation of prohibited liquors. The ear at the time was being driven by an officer of the law, and at the hearing, which was had viva voce before the court, no question seems to have been saised concerning the diligence of appellant, claimant, in trusting the car, if his, into the hands of the driver. We should think that one might let his car into the possession of an officer of the law, a deputy sheriff in this ease, relying upon that fact as being sufficient to exclude the necessity of inquiry as to the probable use of the car in the transportation of prohibited liquors.

Appellant claimed to be the owner of the car, and the real question at issue was whether he or the driver was in fact the owner. The evidence was in conflict and confusion, and so with the inferences to be drawn from it. The state’s theory -of the case was that the driver was the real owner and that appellant, for reasons of his own, was intervening as claimant in order to save the car for the driver; and .so the court found in effect. As we have said, the evidence was taken viva- voce in the presence of the court and was in conflict, so that now we are unable to say with any conviction of right that the court was wrong in its conclusion. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

An automobile was caught flagrante delicto and condemned as haying been employed in the illegal transportation of prohibited liquors. The ear at the time was being driven by an officer of the law, and at the hearing, which was had viva voce before the court, no question seems to have been saised concerning the diligence of appellant, claimant, in trusting the car, if his, into the hands of the driver. We should think that one might let his car into the possession of an officer of the law, a deputy sheriff in this ease, relying upon that fact as being sufficient to exclude the necessity of inquiry as to the probable use of the car in the transportation of prohibited liquors.

Appellant claimed to be the owner of the car, and the real question at issue was whether he or the driver was in fact the owner. The evidence was in conflict and confusion, and so with the inferences to be drawn from it. The state’s theory -of the case was that the driver was the real owner and that appellant, for reasons of his own, was intervening as claimant in order to save the car for the driver; and .so the court found in effect. As we have said, the evidence was taken viva- voce in the presence of the court and was in conflict, so that now we are unable to say with any conviction of right that the court was wrong in its conclusion. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 174, 219 Ala. 258, 1929 Ala. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-state-ala-1929.