Hoffman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hoffman v. State

146 So. 920, 25 Ala. App. 640

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 1933

Docket5 Div. 886.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 146 So. 920 (Hoffman 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

Hoffman v. State, 146 So. 920, 25 Ala. App. 640 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant, according to the contention made by the state, in its brief filed here, was charged with a violation of “Schedule 97, Revenue Acts 1929.’’

*641 The court has read and considered the evidence in the case, which consisted of an “agreed statement of facts,” sitting en banc.

We are of the opinion, and hold, that there was no evidence tending to support the charge made. See People’s Auto Co. v. State, 23 Ala. App. 7, 121 So. 907.

It results that the trial court was in error in rendering judgment of conviction — the case being tried before the court without a jury — against appellant.

The same is hereby reversed, and it is ordered that appellant be discharged and go hence, etc. Code 1923, § 6149.

Reversed and rendered.

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