King v. State
129 So. 482, 23 Ala. App. 554, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 163
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in King v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 Ala. App. 267 →
Opinion
Appellant complains ■ that the trial court erred in refusing to permit defendant to prove that another than defendant said he was the owner of the whisky found in defendant’s car. This would have been hearsay evidence.
There is! 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
King v. State, 129 So. 482, 23 Ala. App. 554, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 163 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).
129 So. 482 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.