Dyson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dyson v. State

104 So. 920, 20 Ala. App. 678

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1925

Docket7 Div. 108.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 So. 920 (Dyson 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

Dyson v. State, 104 So. 920, 20 Ala. App. 678 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling alcoholic liquors, and he appeals. No brief was filed by appellant, but we have examined critically and carefully the entire record in the cause. A detailed discussion of the evidence, or a treatment seriatim of the several exceptions reserved at the trial, could serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that our examination of the record reveals that no prejudicial error infected any ruling of the trial court on the admission or rejection of testimony. The written charges refused, where stating correct propositions of law, were each fully covered, either by the oral charge of the court, or other written charges given at defendant’s request. There was abundant evidence to support the finding of the jury. No error, prejudicial to any right of the defendant, appearing in the record, let the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling alcoholic liquors, and he appeals. No brief was filed by appellant, but we have examined critically and carefully the entire record in the cause. A detailed discussion of the evidence, or a treatment seriatim of the several exceptions reserved at the trial, could serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that our examination of the record reveals that no prejudicial error infected any ruling of the trial court on the admission or rejection of testimony. The written charges refused, where stating correct propositions of law, were each fully covered, either by the oral charge of the court, or other written charges given at defendant’s request. There was abundant evidence to support the finding of the jury. No error, prejudicial to any right of the defendant, appearing in the record, let the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 920, 20 Ala. App. 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyson-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack