Bice v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bice v. State

139 So. 910, 25 Ala. App. 603

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 1932

Docket7 Div. 907.

StatusPublished

This text of 139 So. 910 (Bice 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

Bice v. State, 139 So. 910, 25 Ala. App. 603 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol. Also for 'the unlawful possession, etc., of a still to be used for that purpose.

The evidence was in conflict, but it clearly appears it was ample to uphold the verdict of the jury, and to sustain the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered.

The trial appears to have proceeded throughout without objection or exception, save as to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. On the hearing of said motion the defendant insisted, in the first six grounds thereof, that the evidence was insufficient and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. There is no merit in these insistences as hereinabove stated. The seventh ground of the.motion is not sustained by the record, as it nowhere appears therein that the affirmative charge for defendant was requested. No such charge is incorporated in the record ; but, if there had been, it could not have availed the defendant, as the evidence was in sharp conflict and presented a jury question. The record is regular.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol. Also for 'the unlawful possession, etc., of a still to be used for that purpose.

The evidence was in conflict, but it clearly appears it was ample to uphold the verdict of the jury, and to sustain the judgment of conviction pronounced and entered.

The trial appears to have proceeded throughout without objection or exception, save as to the action of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial. On the hearing of said motion the defendant insisted, in the first six grounds thereof, that the evidence was insufficient and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. There is no merit in these insistences as hereinabove stated. The seventh ground of the.motion is not sustained by the record, as it nowhere appears therein that the affirmative charge for defendant was requested. No such charge is incorporated in the record ; but, if there had been, it could not have availed the defendant, as the evidence was in sharp conflict and presented a jury question. The record is regular.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 910, 25 Ala. App. 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bice-v-state-alactapp-1932.