Love v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Love v. State

105 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 682

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Love v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ala. App. 392 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided November 10, 1925·No. 2 Div. 327.·Published

Opinion

*683 SAMEORD, J.

The defendant was charged by indictment with having in his possession one quart of whisky, and in a separate count with selling a quart of whisky. The evidence for the state makes out a clear case against the defendant. The evidence fixes the time within 12 months before the finding of the indictment. The questions were for the jury. There is no prejudicial error in the record. Let the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

*683 SAMEORD, J.

The defendant was charged by indictment with having in his possession one quart of whisky, and in a separate count with selling a quart of whisky. The evidence for the state makes out a clear case against the defendant. The evidence fixes the time within 12 months before the finding of the indictment. The questions were for the jury. There is no prejudicial error in the record. Let the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.

Love v. State, 105 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 682 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

105 So. 924 (Love v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.