Cash v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cash v. State

109 So. 923, 21 Ala. App. 664

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 31, 1926

Docket7 Div. 212.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 So. 923 (Cash 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

Cash v. State, 109 So. 923, 21 Ala. App. 664 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Upon an indictment charging the appellant with distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, etc., also for the possession of a still to be used for that purpose, he was convicted and sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of imprisonment in the penitentiary of 15 to 18 months. Prom the judgment of conviction he appealed. The defendant offered no evidence upon this trial, and the evidence of the state consisted of the testimony of several witnesses, who testified in substance that they saw this man in the actual participation of the offense complained of in the indictment. No good purpose could be sub-served by a repetition of the evidence. Suffice it to say it was ample to sustain the verdict of the jury and to support the judgment of conviction. The several insistences of error here made are so clearly without merit they need not be discussed. It is apparent that the appellant was accorded a fair and impartial trial free from hurtful error. Where this is evident, an affirmance must be ordered as the defendant has no right to demand or expect more. Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Upon an indictment charging the appellant with distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, etc., also for the possession of a still to be used for that purpose, he was convicted and sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of imprisonment in the penitentiary of 15 to 18 months. Prom the judgment of conviction he appealed. The defendant offered no evidence upon this trial, and the evidence of the state consisted of the testimony of several witnesses, who testified in substance that they saw this man in the actual participation of the offense complained of in the indictment. No good purpose could be sub-served by a repetition of the evidence. Suffice it to say it was ample to sustain the verdict of the jury and to support the judgment of conviction. The several insistences of error here made are so clearly without merit they need not be discussed. It is apparent that the appellant was accorded a fair and impartial trial free from hurtful error. Where this is evident, an affirmance must be ordered as the defendant has no right to demand or expect more. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 923, 21 Ala. App. 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cash-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack