Everett v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Everett v. State

106 So. 680, 21 Ala. App. 195, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 329

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Everett v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ala. App. 30 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided December 15, 1925·No. 4 Div. 171.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws by having in his possession a quantity of beer containing alcohol. Everything connected with his trial was regular and without error. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict returned.

Charge 2, requested, by defendant, was properly refused. The purpose for which the mixture was placed in the barrel would not affect appellant’s guilt vel non of the offense charged.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws by having in his possession a quantity of beer containing alcohol. Everything connected with his trial was regular and without error. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict returned.

Charge 2, requested, by defendant, was properly refused. The purpose for which the mixture was placed in the barrel would not affect appellant’s guilt vel non of the offense charged.

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

Affirmed.

Everett v. State, 106 So. 680, 21 Ala. App. 195, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 329 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

106 So. 680 (Everett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.