Floyd v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Floyd v. State

182 So. 92, 28 Ala. App. 243, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 156

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 7, 1938·No. 6 Div. 252.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The defendant was tried on an affidavit charging that he sold or possessed prohibited liquors, etc.

It is admitted by the defendant that, in Marion County and within twelve months before the beginning of the prosecution, he did possess prohibited liquor, but he claims, and it is also admitted, that he purchased such liquors from a State Liquor Store, and that it was properly stamped. This is no defense to the charge of ■ possessing whiskey or beer in a prohibition county. Williams v. State, ante, p. 73, 179 So. 915, certiorari denied 235 Ala. 520, 179 So. 920.

There is no reversible 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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The defendant was tried on an affidavit charging that he sold or possessed prohibited liquors, etc.

It is admitted by the defendant that, in Marion County and within twelve months before the beginning of the prosecution, he did possess prohibited liquor, but he claims, and it is also admitted, that he purchased such liquors from a State Liquor Store, and that it was properly stamped. This is no defense to the charge of ■ possessing whiskey or beer in a prohibition county. Williams v. State, ante, p. 73, 179 So. 915, certiorari denied 235 Ala. 520, 179 So. 920.

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

Affirmed.

Floyd v. State, 182 So. 92, 28 Ala. App. 243, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 156 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

182 So. 92 (Floyd v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related