Duncan v. State

182 So. 408, 28 Ala. App. 271, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 175
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Duncan v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 28 Ala. App. 565
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 21, 1938·No. 8 Div. 641.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The defendant was charged with having in his possession prohibited' liquors. The evidence tended to prove this charge. There was a verdict and judgment finding the defendant guilty.

The evidence tended to prove that in Lauderdale County, within twelve months before- the finding of the indictment, the defendant was in possession of whiskey and beer, both of which are prohibited liquors under the law. The fact that the whiskey and the beer had the stamp of .the State on it was no defense. Williams v. State, ante, p. 73, 179 So. 915.

There is no error in the record. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Duncan v. State, 182 So. 408, 28 Ala. App. 271, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 175 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

182 So. 408 (Duncan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. State
179 So. 915 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1938)