Biddle v. State

99 So. 59, 19 Ala. App. 563, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 31
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 5, 1924·No. 7 Div. 911.·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1, 2] It is not a violation of the law for a man to be present at a still when whisky is being made. This was all the testimony for the state tended to show. If a defendant is present at a still located oñ his own premises or premises under his control, a different question would be presented. The "affirmative charge should have been given for the defendant as requested. Moon v. State, ante, p. 176, 95 South. 830; Farmer v. State, ante, p. 560, 99 South. 59.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Biddle v. State, 99 So. 59, 19 Ala. App. 563, 1924 Ala. App. LEXIS 31 (Ala. Ct. App. 1924).

99 So. 59 (Biddle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morgan v. State
272 So. 2d 256 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1972)
Dixon v. State
115 So. 2d 269 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
House v. State
61 So. 2d 457 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1952)
Hudson v. State
31 So. 2d 774 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947)
Arrington v. State
133 So. 592 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1931)
Elmore v. State
109 So. 114 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Burnett v. State
107 So. 321 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Washington v. State
107 So. 34 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Etheridge v. State
105 So. 923 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
Stanley v. State
102 So. 245 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Williamson v. State
102 So. 485 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)