Frachiseur v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Frachiseur v. State

103 So. 923, 20 Ala. App. 678

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1925

Docket8 Div. 200.

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 923 (Frachiseur 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

Frachiseur v. State, 103 So. 923, 20 Ala. App. 678 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging in two several counts distilling prohibited liquors and having in his possession a still, etc. Under the authority of Glaze v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 629, 1 it would appear that the defendant may have been entitled to have given at his request the general affirmative charge as to the first count of the indictment; but as the evidence may be different on another trial, and as the case must be reversed on another ground, that question will not be here decided. Count 2 of the indictment charged that the defendant “ * * * had in his possession a still, apparatus, appliance, or some device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages,” etc. Under the rule laid down in Wilson v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 914, 2 we hold that the general affirmative charge, requested in writing by the defendant, should have, under the evidence, been given as to this count, and for its refusal the ease will be reversed. Other exceptions will not be treated, for the reason same may not arise upon another trial. Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 7.

2

Ante, p. 62.

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

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging in two several counts distilling prohibited liquors and having in his possession a still, etc. Under the authority of Glaze v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 629, 1 it would appear that the defendant may have been entitled to have given at his request the general affirmative charge as to the first count of the indictment; but as the evidence may be different on another trial, and as the case must be reversed on another ground, that question will not be here decided. Count 2 of the indictment charged that the defendant “ * * * had in his possession a still, apparatus, appliance, or some device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages,” etc. Under the rule laid down in Wilson v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 914, 2 we hold that the general affirmative charge, requested in writing by the defendant, should have, under the evidence, been given as to this count, and for its refusal the ease will be reversed. Other exceptions will not be treated, for the reason same may not arise upon another trial. Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 7.

2

Ante, p. 62.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 923, 20 Ala. App. 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frachiseur-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack