Holt v. City of Mobile

80 So. 171, 16 Ala. App. 597, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 272
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided November 26, 1918·No. 1 Div. 258.·Published

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

The only question presented on the record is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to authorize the judgment of conviction. There was some evidence tending to show that the defendant was in charge of the place where the officers found liquor stored, and in a building that was not used exclusively for a dwelling, Jones v. Montgomery, ante, p. 357, 77 South. 969; Conner v. State, ante, p. 452, 78 South. 715; Holt v. State, ante, p. 399, 78 South. 315.

The testimony was given ore tenus before the court, sitting without a jury, and we are unable to say from the evidence in the record that the conclusion of the trial court is plainly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Union Mut. Aid Ass’n of Mobile v. Carroway, 201 Ala. 414, 78 South. 732; Smith v. Thomas, 201 Ala. 442, 78 South. 820; Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761.

Affirmed.

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

Holt v. City of Mobile, 80 So. 171, 16 Ala. App. 597, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 272 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

80 So. 171 (Holt v. City of Mobile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Union Mut. Aid Ass'n v. Carroway
78 So. 792 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Smith v. Thomas
78 So. 820 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Holt v. State
78 So. 315 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Mulligan v. State
72 So. 761 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)