Haney v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Haney v. State

95 So. 57, 19 Ala. App. 79, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 9

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1923

Docket6 Div. 160.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 95 So. 57 (Haney 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

Haney v. State, 95 So. 57, 19 Ala. App. 79, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 9 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The indictment charges, in separate counts, two offenses — first, manufacturing whisky; and, second possessing a-still. There was a general verdict of guilty. Plaintiff rests his insistence for a reversal of the judgment on the contention that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict ; this upon the assumption! that there is not sufficient evidence to establish the fact that whisky was actually manufactured.

*80 In the first place, wé hold that the evidence was sufficient to make this a jury question; and in the next place, even -if defendant’s contention was sound, there was abundant evidence to warrant the jury in finding that defendant was in the joint possession, with others, of a still or other apparatus, to he used for the purpose of manufacturing whis-ky. That being the case, and the verdict referable to either count, even if there was a failure of proof as to the first count, the judgment would not be error.

There is no merit in the several objections, and. as counsel does not so insist, we do not deal with them separately. ■ There is no 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.

The indictment charges, in separate counts, two offenses — first, manufacturing whisky; and, second possessing a-still. There was a general verdict of guilty. Plaintiff rests his insistence for a reversal of the judgment on the contention that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict ; this upon the assumption! that there is not sufficient evidence to establish the fact that whisky was actually manufactured.

*80 In the first place, wé hold that the evidence was sufficient to make this a jury question; and in the next place, even -if defendant’s contention was sound, there was abundant evidence to warrant the jury in finding that defendant was in the joint possession, with others, of a still or other apparatus, to he used for the purpose of manufacturing whis-ky. That being the case, and the verdict referable to either count, even if there was a failure of proof as to the first count, the judgment would not be error.

There is no merit in the several objections, and. as counsel does not so insist, we do not deal with them separately. ■ There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 57, 19 Ala. App. 79, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haney-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack