Bowles v. State
139 So. 911, 25 Ala. App. 605
This text of 139 So. 911 (Bowles 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
Bowles v. State, 139 So. 911, 25 Ala. App. 605 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition law and appeals.
This case was tried by the court without a jury. The evidence was in conflict, and, giving to the court’s conclusion the weight to which it is entitled under the law, the judgment must be affirmed. Peterson v. State, 17 Ala. App. 662, 88 So. 49.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Peterson v. State
88 So. 49 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1921)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
139 So. 911, 25 Ala. App. 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowles-v-state-alactapp-1932.