Garrett v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Garrett v. State

106 So. 916, 21 Ala. App. 671

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 19, 1926·No. 7 Div. 152.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws by distilling, etc., liquors, a part of which was alcohol. The case is merely “e pluribus unum.” There is nothing new or novel involved. The evidence was ample to support the conviction. There is no merit in the single exception reserved upon the taking of testimony in the case. The oral charge of the court was free from error. The record is regular. 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 distilling, etc., liquors, a part of which was alcohol. The case is merely “e pluribus unum.” There is nothing new or novel involved. The evidence was ample to support the conviction. There is no merit in the single exception reserved upon the taking of testimony in the case. The oral charge of the court was free from error. The record is regular. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Garrett v. State, 106 So. 916, 21 Ala. App. 671 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

106 So. 916 (Garrett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.