Fornewall v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Fornewall v. State

180 So. 738, 28 Ala. App. 198, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 126

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1938

Docket7 Div. 361.

StatusPublished

This text of 180 So. 738 (Fornewall 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

Fornewall v. State, 180 So. 738, 28 Ala. App. 198, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 126 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment charged this appellant and another with the offense of unlawfully having in their possession a still, etc., for the purpose of manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages, etc., in the first count. The second count charged the defendants, jointly, with manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol, etc.

Upon demand being made a severance was granted, and this appellant was put to trial alone on said indictment. Said trial resulted in his conviction “as charged in the indictment,” whereupon the court duly pronounced and entered a correct judgment of conviction, and sentenced this appellant to serve an indeterminate period of imprisonment in the penitentiary as the law *199 j-equires. From said judgment, this appeal was taken and has been here submitted upon the record proper only, there being no bill of exceptions. Upon examination of the record we find that the proceedings in the lower court were regular in all things, therefore the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The indictment charged this appellant and another with the offense of unlawfully having in their possession a still, etc., for the purpose of manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages, etc., in the first count. The second count charged the defendants, jointly, with manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol, etc.

Upon demand being made a severance was granted, and this appellant was put to trial alone on said indictment. Said trial resulted in his conviction “as charged in the indictment,” whereupon the court duly pronounced and entered a correct judgment of conviction, and sentenced this appellant to serve an indeterminate period of imprisonment in the penitentiary as the law *199 j-equires. From said judgment, this appeal was taken and has been here submitted upon the record proper only, there being no bill of exceptions. Upon examination of the record we find that the proceedings in the lower court were regular in all things, therefore the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 So. 738, 28 Ala. App. 198, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fornewall-v-state-alactapp-1938.