Hilyer v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hilyer v. State

115 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 674

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 1928

Docket5 Div. 681.

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 923 (Hilyer 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 923, 22 Ala. App. 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilyer-v-state-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack