Hoagland v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hoagland v. State

123 So. 294, 23 Ala. App. 269, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 213

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1929

Docket8 Div. 852.

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 294 (Hoagland 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

Hoagland v. State, 123 So. 294, 23 Ala. App. 269, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 213 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

No reversible error appears in this record. The evidence was in sharp conflict, thereby presenting a jury question. Appellant was convicted under the second count of the indictment, which charged, in proper form and substance,- the unlawful possession of a eontrabánd still. His presence at the still was admitted, and there was evidence tending to show acts of ownership and possession. The denial by the accused that he was in any manner connected with the still or its possession, and the evidence tending to show the contrary, formed the issue of fact for the determination of the jury. The exceptions reserved by defendant are without merit. Let the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

No reversible error appears in this record. The evidence was in sharp conflict, thereby presenting a jury question. Appellant was convicted under the second count of the indictment, which charged, in proper form and substance,- the unlawful possession of a eontrabánd still. His presence at the still was admitted, and there was evidence tending to show acts of ownership and possession. The denial by the accused that he was in any manner connected with the still or its possession, and the evidence tending to show the contrary, formed the issue of fact for the determination of the jury. The exceptions reserved by defendant are without merit. Let the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 294, 23 Ala. App. 269, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoagland-v-state-alactapp-1929.