Hunt v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hunt v. State

97 So. 257, 19 Ala. App. 338, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 190

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 10, 1923

Docket4 Div. 882.

StatusPublished

This text of 97 So. 257 (Hunt 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

Hunt v. State, 97 So. 257, 19 Ala. App. 338, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 190 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There being no bill of exceptions in this record, we cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing to give the general charge as requested by defendant.

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged manufacturing whisky, and the second possessing a still. The verdict responded to the second count, and therefore was an acquittal of the charge under the first count, and the second count undoubtedly charged an offense under the statute.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

There being no bill of exceptions in this record, we cannot review the action of the trial court in refusing to give the general charge as requested by defendant.

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged manufacturing whisky, and the second possessing a still. The verdict responded to the second count, and therefore was an acquittal of the charge under the first count, and the second count undoubtedly charged an offense under the statute.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 So. 257, 19 Ala. App. 338, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-alactapp-1923.