Horton v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Horton v. State

121 So. 906, 23 Ala. App. 109, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 100

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 1929

Docket8 Div. 724.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 121 So. 906 (Horton 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

Horton v. State, 121 So. 906, 23 Ala. App. 109, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 100 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RIGE; J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully having in his possession a still, etc., to he used for the purpose of manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages, etc.

We have carefully read the entire evidence and are of the opinion that under the rule laid down in the case of Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 62, 100 So. 914, it made a case proper to he submitted to the jury, in the first instance, on the question of whether or not the articles found were of the kind denounced by law and were in the possession of the appellant for the purposes charged in the second count of the indictment — on which count he was, by the jury, found guilty. The general affirmative charge for the defendant should never be given, if there is any legal evidence, no matter how slight, tending to support the proper allegations made against him. In passing upon the propriety vel non of the refusal of such charge, under such circumstances, the weight and sufficiency of the evidence are not to he considered, either by the lower court, or this court; those matters are, on such consideration, solely for the jury.

We find nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RIGE; J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully having in his possession a still, etc., to he used for the purpose of manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages, etc.

We have carefully read the entire evidence and are of the opinion that under the rule laid down in the case of Wilson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 62, 100 So. 914, it made a case proper to he submitted to the jury, in the first instance, on the question of whether or not the articles found were of the kind denounced by law and were in the possession of the appellant for the purposes charged in the second count of the indictment — on which count he was, by the jury, found guilty. The general affirmative charge for the defendant should never be given, if there is any legal evidence, no matter how slight, tending to support the proper allegations made against him. In passing upon the propriety vel non of the refusal of such charge, under such circumstances, the weight and sufficiency of the evidence are not to he considered, either by the lower court, or this court; those matters are, on such consideration, solely for the jury.

We find nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 906, 23 Ala. App. 109, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack