Eason v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Eason v. State

14 So. 2d 255, 31 Ala. App. 212

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1943

Docket8 Div. 305.

StatusPublished

This text of 14 So. 2d 255 (Eason 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

Eason v. State, 14 So. 2d 255, 31 Ala. App. 212 (Ala. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Judge.

Prosecution for a violation of the State prohibition law in Madison, a dry (as so termed under the statute) county.

The case was sufficiently proven by one Campbell, a State’s witness, who was an agent of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. According to his testimony, the defendant was seen to deliver a pint of whiskey to some persons sitting at a table in the Cafe where defendant was working. This, if true, constituted a violation of the statute, and, if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, justified the verdict of guilty. Code 1940, Title 29, Sec. 98; Murphy v. State, 27 Ala.App. 204, 169 So. 24; Slaughter v. State, 27 Ala. App. 39, 167 So. 333; Ledbetter v. State, 27 Ala.App. 395, 173 So. 647.

There were no exceptions reserved pending trial to the rulings of the court upon the evidence. As outlined above, the verdict of guilt was warranted by the evidence and the judgment of conviction is therefore well supported.

The case here must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

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

SIMPSON, Judge.

Prosecution for a violation of the State prohibition law in Madison, a dry (as so termed under the statute) county.

The case was sufficiently proven by one Campbell, a State’s witness, who was an agent of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. According to his testimony, the defendant was seen to deliver a pint of whiskey to some persons sitting at a table in the Cafe where defendant was working. This, if true, constituted a violation of the statute, and, if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, justified the verdict of guilty. Code 1940, Title 29, Sec. 98; Murphy v. State, 27 Ala.App. 204, 169 So. 24; Slaughter v. State, 27 Ala. App. 39, 167 So. 333; Ledbetter v. State, 27 Ala.App. 395, 173 So. 647.

There were no exceptions reserved pending trial to the rulings of the court upon the evidence. As outlined above, the verdict of guilt was warranted by the evidence and the judgment of conviction is therefore well supported.

The case here must be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 So. 2d 255, 31 Ala. App. 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eason-v-state-alactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack