Day v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Day v. State

97 So. 117, 19 Ala. App. 307, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 164

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1923

Docket7 Div. 868.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 97 So. 117 (Day 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

Day v. State, 97 So. 117, 19 Ala. App. 307, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 164 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEOKD, J.

The indictment as returned by the grand jury contained two counts. The first charged manufacturing whisky and the second possessing a still. The state entered a nol. pros, as to the first count, and the' trial proceeded to judgment on the second. To this 'count defendant pleaded in bar that he had theretofore, in a court of competent jurisdiction, been prosecuted and convicted on a charge of possessing prohibited liquors, and that the whisky found.in his possession was made by him on the still of which he is in this case charged with having in his possession. This plea was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. The state offered evidence tending to establish the .guilt of the defendant, and the defendant admitted possession of the still.

By Acts of the Legislature 1919, p. 1086, the possession of a still to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors is made a crime, separate and distinct from any other of the offenses included in the various prohibition laws of the state. The defendant ex necessitate possessed the still be-' fore he possessed the liquor and .the fact that, he manufactured liquor on, in or by it did not and could not render him guiltless of its possession. Besides the possession of manufactured whisky is an entirely distinct and different crime from the offense of possessing a still. The distinction is too obvious for argument.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMEOKD, J.

The indictment as returned by the grand jury contained two counts. The first charged manufacturing whisky and the second possessing a still. The state entered a nol. pros, as to the first count, and the' trial proceeded to judgment on the second. To this 'count defendant pleaded in bar that he had theretofore, in a court of competent jurisdiction, been prosecuted and convicted on a charge of possessing prohibited liquors, and that the whisky found.in his possession was made by him on the still of which he is in this case charged with having in his possession. This plea was demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. The state offered evidence tending to establish the .guilt of the defendant, and the defendant admitted possession of the still.

By Acts of the Legislature 1919, p. 1086, the possession of a still to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors is made a crime, separate and distinct from any other of the offenses included in the various prohibition laws of the state. The defendant ex necessitate possessed the still be-' fore he possessed the liquor and .the fact that, he manufactured liquor on, in or by it did not and could not render him guiltless of its possession. Besides the possession of manufactured whisky is an entirely distinct and different crime from the offense of possessing a still. The distinction is too obvious for argument.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 117, 19 Ala. App. 307, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack