Cummings v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cummings v. State

135 So. 920, 24 Ala. App. 626

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cummings v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 26 Ala. App. 131 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 1931·No. 8 Div. 320.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence in this case was in conflict. That for the state tending to prove that the defendant and his wife were in the possession of three gallons of whisky, and that for the defendant tending to prove that the whisky was owned by and was in possession of a brother-in-law, who was temporarily staying with defendant and his wife. The trial judge had all the parties before him, and, giving to his finding the presumptions to which they are entitled under the law, his judgment is affirmed.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence in this case was in conflict. That for the state tending to prove that the defendant and his wife were in the possession of three gallons of whisky, and that for the defendant tending to prove that the whisky was owned by and was in possession of a brother-in-law, who was temporarily staying with defendant and his wife. The trial judge had all the parties before him, and, giving to his finding the presumptions to which they are entitled under the law, his judgment is affirmed.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cummings v. State, 135 So. 920, 24 Ala. App. 626 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

135 So. 920 (Cummings v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.