Gardner v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gardner v. State

102 So. 914, 20 Ala. App. 469, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 23

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 1925

Docket7 Div. 28.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 So. 914 (Gardner 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

Gardner v. State, 102 So. 914, 20 Ala. App. 469, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 23 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged that defendant manufactured whisky, and the second, the possession of a still, etc. There was a verdict of guilty under the first count. Under the law, this was an acquittal of the second count.

The defendant requested the general charge as to the first count which charge was refused. We have carefully' examined the record, and nowhere is there any evidence that whisky was in fact manufactured. No whisky was found; no smell of whisky was shown. In fact, nothing was shown by the evidence from which the jury would be authorized to legally find that whisky had been made. The charge as to count 1 should have been given, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMEORD, J.

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged that defendant manufactured whisky, and the second, the possession of a still, etc. There was a verdict of guilty under the first count. Under the law, this was an acquittal of the second count.

The defendant requested the general charge as to the first count which charge was refused. We have carefully' examined the record, and nowhere is there any evidence that whisky was in fact manufactured. No whisky was found; no smell of whisky was shown. In fact, nothing was shown by the evidence from which the jury would be authorized to legally find that whisky had been made. The charge as to count 1 should have been given, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 So. 914, 20 Ala. App. 469, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack