Conner v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Conner v. State

78 So. 715, 16 Ala. App. 452, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 135

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1918

Docket3 Div. 276.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 So. 715 (Conner 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

Conner v. State, 78 So. 715, 16 Ala. App. 452, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 135 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

B|ROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The evidence shows that the sheriff and his deputy came upon the defendant and three other men in an outhouse near the defendant’s residence at midnight, and that the defendant had several bottles of beer on ice therein, and that there were empty beer bottles in the building. The three men with the defendant at the time testified that they had gone to this place to get beer from the defendant. The fact that the defendant kept the beer in the outhouse was prima facie evidence tllat he kept it for sale or with the intent to sell it contrary to law. Acts 1915, p. 9, §4; Jones v. City of Montgomery, 77 South. 969 ; 1 Holt v. State, 78 South. 315; 2 Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310; Kinsaul v. State, 8 Ala. App. 405, 62 South. 990. Under the evidence, the defendant was not *453 entitled to the affirmative charge. Wynn v. State, 11 Ala. App. 182, 65 South. 687

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 357.

2

Ante, p. 399.

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

B|ROWN, P. J.

[1, 2] The evidence shows that the sheriff and his deputy came upon the defendant and three other men in an outhouse near the defendant’s residence at midnight, and that the defendant had several bottles of beer on ice therein, and that there were empty beer bottles in the building. The three men with the defendant at the time testified that they had gone to this place to get beer from the defendant. The fact that the defendant kept the beer in the outhouse was prima facie evidence tllat he kept it for sale or with the intent to sell it contrary to law. Acts 1915, p. 9, §4; Jones v. City of Montgomery, 77 South. 969 ; 1 Holt v. State, 78 South. 315; 2 Stokes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 160, 59 South. 310; Kinsaul v. State, 8 Ala. App. 405, 62 South. 990. Under the evidence, the defendant was not *453 entitled to the affirmative charge. Wynn v. State, 11 Ala. App. 182, 65 South. 687

There is no error in the record.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 357.

2

Ante, p. 399.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 715, 16 Ala. App. 452, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conner-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack