Hall v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hall v. State

67 So. 714, 12 Ala. App. 210, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 154

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 So. 714 (Hall 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

Hall v. State, 67 So. 714, 12 Ala. App. 210, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 154 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

The second count of the indictment charges an offense under the provisions of the statutes regulating handling prohibited beverages (Acts 1909, pp. 86, 87, § 24), and demurrers to this count were properly overruled.—Williams v. State, 7 Ala. App. 124, 62 South. 294; Williams v. State, 8 Ala. App. 394, 62 South. 371.

In'prosecutions for a violation of the liquor laws it is not necessary to set out in the indictment the name of the person to whom a gift or sale of the prohibited liquor was made, or for whom conveyed or transported. — Acts 1909, pp. 86, 87, § 27. See Grace v. State, 1 Ala. App. 211, 56 South. 25.

While the evidence as set out in the bill of exceptions contained in the transcript is somewhat confusing in parts, as well as contradictory, there ivas sufficient evidence of the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged [212]*212against him to submit that question to the jury. In one part of the bill of exceptions it is recited that the defendant himself testified that, in addition to the barrel of beer, he had whisky in the wagon, and, while specifically claiming the beer as his own, no such claim was made with respect to the whisky; nor did the defendant deny the testimony of the state’s witnesses to the effect that the defendant had told them that he was hauling the whisky for another.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

The second count of the indictment charges an offense under the provisions of the statutes regulating handling prohibited beverages (Acts 1909, pp. 86, 87, § 24), and demurrers to this count were properly overruled.—Williams v. State, 7 Ala. App. 124, 62 South. 294; Williams v. State, 8 Ala. App. 394, 62 South. 371.

In'prosecutions for a violation of the liquor laws it is not necessary to set out in the indictment the name of the person to whom a gift or sale of the prohibited liquor was made, or for whom conveyed or transported. — Acts 1909, pp. 86, 87, § 27. See Grace v. State, 1 Ala. App. 211, 56 South. 25.

While the evidence as set out in the bill of exceptions contained in the transcript is somewhat confusing in parts, as well as contradictory, there ivas sufficient evidence of the guilt of the defendant of the offense charged [212]*212against him to submit that question to the jury. In one part of the bill of exceptions it is recited that the defendant himself testified that, in addition to the barrel of beer, he had whisky in the wagon, and, while specifically claiming the beer as his own, no such claim was made with respect to the whisky; nor did the defendant deny the testimony of the state’s witnesses to the effect that the defendant had told them that he was hauling the whisky for another.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 714, 12 Ala. App. 210, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-alactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack