Bush v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bush v. State

167 So. 335, 27 Ala. App. 30, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 10

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 17, 1935

Docket4 Div. 227.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 167 So. 335 (Bush 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

Bush v. State, 167 So. 335, 27 Ala. App. 30, 1935 Ala. App. LEXIS 10 (Ala. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the “prohibition law” (Code 1923, c. 167) by having whisky in his possession.

The prosecution was begun by “affidavit and warrant” in the county court. On appeal to the circuit court, the solicitor filed a “complaint,” though same was unnecessary.. Code 1923, §§ 3843, 4646.

The objections sought to be raised to the affidavit and warrant of arrest, the machinery by which the prosecution was set in operation, amounting to no more than that same were defective, came too late, when made for the first time in the circuit court. Gilbert v. State, 25 Ala.App. 169, 142 So. 682; Vinson v. State, 26 Ala.App. 48, 152 So. 259. It was not necessary that the affidavit be “signed,” anyhow. Floyd v. State, 26 Ala.App. 385, 160 So. 557.

Appellant appeared, pleaded not guilty, and was fairly tried before a jury. They found him guilty. His purely technical quibbles cannot avail him here; it plainly appearing that no ruling that was made was of the slightest injury to him. It was the verdict of the jury that brought to him his grief.

The judgment of conviction, and all that follows, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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