Etheridge v. State
105 So. 923, 21 Ala. App. 669
Opinion
The evidence fails to connect defendants, or either of them, with possession of the stills found. The affirmative charge should have been given for defendants. Hobdy v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 571; 1 Biddle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 563, 99 So. 59; Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App; 176, 95 So. 830; Farmer v. State, 19 Ala. App. 560, 99 So. 59; Medders v. State, 19 Ala. App. 628, 99 So. 776; Watts v. State, 19 Ala. App. 549, 98 So. 914. Reversed and remanded.
1
20 Ala. App. 44.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Etheridge v. State, 105 So. 923, 21 Ala. App. 669 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).
105 So. 923 (Etheridge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Farmer v. State
99 So. 59 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Biddle v. State
99 So. 59 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Moon v. State
95 So. 830 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)
Medders v. State
99 So. 776 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Hobdy v. State
100 So. 571 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)
Watts v. State
98 So. 914 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)