Bradley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bradley v. State

55 So. 429, 1 Ala. App. 214, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 227

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 55 So. 429 (Bradley 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

Bradley v. State, 55 So. 429, 1 Ala. App. 214, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 227 (Ala. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, P.J.

The evidence before the trial court was such as to warrant the inference of the defendant’s guilt of an offense charged in the indictment. The witness John Reed testified that he went to defendant’s store, laid a half dollar down on the counter up near the front, the defendant at the time being in that part of the building, then walked through a partition to the back end of the store, and got a bottle of whisky from a'barrel just inside the partition door, and left the store by the side door, without seeing the defendant get the money, and without seeing or speaking to the defendant after the money was put on the counter. This testimony afforded a ground for a legitimate inference, not a mere surmise or suspicion, that the defendant got the money for the bottle of whisky. To declare that more than this is necessary to be shown to prove a violation of a statute against the sale or other disposition of intoxicants would but facilitate evasions of the law. Frequently violators of such laws take enough notice of their existence to give their transactions the semblance of something different from ordinary sales in the way of business. Such laws cannot effectually be enforced if mere appearances are permitted to hide the results actually consummated.—Roberson v. State, 100 Ala. 37, 14 South. 554.

Affirmed.

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

WALKER, P.J.

The evidence before the trial court was such as to warrant the inference of the defendant’s guilt of an offense charged in the indictment. The witness John Reed testified that he went to defendant’s store, laid a half dollar down on the counter up near the front, the defendant at the time being in that part of the building, then walked through a partition to the back end of the store, and got a bottle of whisky from a'barrel just inside the partition door, and left the store by the side door, without seeing the defendant get the money, and without seeing or speaking to the defendant after the money was put on the counter. This testimony afforded a ground for a legitimate inference, not a mere surmise or suspicion, that the defendant got the money for the bottle of whisky. To declare that more than this is necessary to be shown to prove a violation of a statute against the sale or other disposition of intoxicants would but facilitate evasions of the law. Frequently violators of such laws take enough notice of their existence to give their transactions the semblance of something different from ordinary sales in the way of business. Such laws cannot effectually be enforced if mere appearances are permitted to hide the results actually consummated.—Roberson v. State, 100 Ala. 37, 14 South. 554.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 So. 429, 1 Ala. App. 214, 1911 Ala. App. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-state-alactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack