Ballard v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Ballard v. State

121 So. 502, 23 Ala. App. 50, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 48

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket3 Div. 619.

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 121 So. 502 (Ballard 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

Ballard v. State, 121 So. 502, 23 Ala. App. 50, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 48 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of being a “vagrant.” There was evidence offered on behalf of the state, tending to show “that appellant was a “bootlegger,” or was engaged in the “bootlegging business.” While a person may, no doubt, engage in “bootlegging” other things, the sale of which is prohibited by law, than “prohibited liquors,” as that term has come to be generally understood, yet we entertain no doubt that in this day of progressive prohibition, the court judicially knows, as everybody else knows, that the term: “bootlegger” describes, to the common understanding, one engaged in the unlawful sale of “spirituous, vinous, or malt or other intoxicating liquors,” as mentioned in paragraph 4 of section 5571 of the Code of 1923, which section defines the various types of vagrants.

The court has read the evidence in this case, sitting en banc, and we are of the opinion that the same amply supports the verdict of guilt returned. The defensive matters offered on behalf ,of appellant were fairly submitted to the jury, by the court. See Brannon v. State, 16 Ala. App. 259, 76 So. 991.

There appearing nowhere any prejudicial error, 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 being a “vagrant.” There was evidence offered on behalf of the state, tending to show “that appellant was a “bootlegger,” or was engaged in the “bootlegging business.” While a person may, no doubt, engage in “bootlegging” other things, the sale of which is prohibited by law, than “prohibited liquors,” as that term has come to be generally understood, yet we entertain no doubt that in this day of progressive prohibition, the court judicially knows, as everybody else knows, that the term: “bootlegger” describes, to the common understanding, one engaged in the unlawful sale of “spirituous, vinous, or malt or other intoxicating liquors,” as mentioned in paragraph 4 of section 5571 of the Code of 1923, which section defines the various types of vagrants.

The court has read the evidence in this case, sitting en banc, and we are of the opinion that the same amply supports the verdict of guilt returned. The defensive matters offered on behalf ,of appellant were fairly submitted to the jury, by the court. See Brannon v. State, 16 Ala. App. 259, 76 So. 991.

There appearing nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 502, 23 Ala. App. 50, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballard-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack