Hilyer v. State

115 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 674
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided January 10, 1928·No. 5 Div. 681.·Published

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

The only insistence of error is the refusal of the trial court to give the general charge for defendant. The facts and circumstances surrounding the finding of the whisky were sufficient to warrant the verdict returned by the jury, and meets the requirements of the rule as laid down- in Cannon v. State, 17 Ala. App. 82, 81 So. 860. Upon reading the entire record in this case, we have no doubt that the defendant has had a fa!ir trial, and that the verdict returned was justified by the evidence. There is no error in the record, and the judgment is aflirmed. Affirmed.

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

Hilyer v. State, 115 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 674 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

115 So. 923 (Hilyer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cannon v. State
81 So. 860 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)