George v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

George v. State

139 So. 915, 25 Ala. App. 628

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 1932

Docket8 Div. 383.

StatusPublished

This text of 139 So. 915 (George 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

George v. State, 139 So. 915, 25 Ala. App. 628 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of unlawfully possessing a still, etc., and appeals.

The officers located a whisky still on the lands which were owned or in the possession of defendant. There was evidence from which a fair inference might be drawn that the defendant knew of the location and had a partial, if not complete, control thereof. The cause was submitted to the jury under a full and fair charge of the court, with the result of a verdict of guilt. While the evidence connecting the defendant with the possession of the still was largely circumstantial, we do not feel that this court would be justified in disturbing the finding.

Other rulings of the court have been examined and found to be without merit.

There is no prejudicial 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, J.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of unlawfully possessing a still, etc., and appeals.

The officers located a whisky still on the lands which were owned or in the possession of defendant. There was evidence from which a fair inference might be drawn that the defendant knew of the location and had a partial, if not complete, control thereof. The cause was submitted to the jury under a full and fair charge of the court, with the result of a verdict of guilt. While the evidence connecting the defendant with the possession of the still was largely circumstantial, we do not feel that this court would be justified in disturbing the finding.

Other rulings of the court have been examined and found to be without merit.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 So. 915, 25 Ala. App. 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-state-alactapp-1932.