Bertalson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bertalson v. State

110 So. 913, 21 Ala. App. 617, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 359

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 1926

Docket1 Div. 674.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 So. 913 (Bertalson 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

Bertalson v. State, 110 So. 913, 21 Ala. App. 617, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 359 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

This is the second appeal in this case. Bertalsen v. State, 20 Ala. App. 539, 103 So. 480.

The defendant was tried by the court without a jury and was convicted for a violation of the Prohibition Daw by having in his possession prohibited liquors. The evidence was in conflict, presenting therefore a question of fact for the court to determine. We are of the opinion that the judgment rendered was warranted by the evidence, and this is the controlling question upon this appeal. The rule, often stated, is that the conclusion of a court sitting without a jury, if based upon oral testimony of witnesses, must on appeal be given the force and effect of a verdict of a jury, and unless plainly wrong cannot be disturbed.

As stated we do not regard the conclusion and the judgment of conviction predicated thereon as being plainly wrong. There was one phase ' of the evidence to justify the court’s action. The judgment of conviction will therefore stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

This is the second appeal in this case. Bertalsen v. State, 20 Ala. App. 539, 103 So. 480.

The defendant was tried by the court without a jury and was convicted for a violation of the Prohibition Daw by having in his possession prohibited liquors. The evidence was in conflict, presenting therefore a question of fact for the court to determine. We are of the opinion that the judgment rendered was warranted by the evidence, and this is the controlling question upon this appeal. The rule, often stated, is that the conclusion of a court sitting without a jury, if based upon oral testimony of witnesses, must on appeal be given the force and effect of a verdict of a jury, and unless plainly wrong cannot be disturbed.

As stated we do not regard the conclusion and the judgment of conviction predicated thereon as being plainly wrong. There was one phase ' of the evidence to justify the court’s action. The judgment of conviction will therefore stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 913, 21 Ala. App. 617, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bertalson-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack