Lowery v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lowery v. State

114 So. 631, 22 Ala. App. 262, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 168

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1927

Docket5 Div. 682.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 So. 631 (Lowery 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

Lowery v. State, 114 So. 631, 22 Ala. App. 262, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 168 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted, generally, under an indictment consisting of two counts, one charging him with distilling prohibited liquors, the other with unlawfully being in possession of a still, etc., to be used for the manufacture of prohibited liquors.

So far as we can observe from a careful reading of the record, there are no questions of law seriously raised. The fact that there was a still, manufacturing whisky, found, was undisputed. Also, that appellant was there present is without dispute. The circumstances surrounding appellant when he was discovered, his movements, his actions at the still, and his sampling the liquor flowing at the time from same, all, when taken together, rendered the question of his guilt vel non one for the jury. That is our conclusion.

There is no merit in the exception reserved to a specific portion of the trial court’s oral, charge. We have searched the record diligently, but find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted, generally, under an indictment consisting of two counts, one charging him with distilling prohibited liquors, the other with unlawfully being in possession of a still, etc., to be used for the manufacture of prohibited liquors.

So far as we can observe from a careful reading of the record, there are no questions of law seriously raised. The fact that there was a still, manufacturing whisky, found, was undisputed. Also, that appellant was there present is without dispute. The circumstances surrounding appellant when he was discovered, his movements, his actions at the still, and his sampling the liquor flowing at the time from same, all, when taken together, rendered the question of his guilt vel non one for the jury. That is our conclusion.

There is no merit in the exception reserved to a specific portion of the trial court’s oral, charge. We have searched the record diligently, but find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 631, 22 Ala. App. 262, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowery-v-state-alactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack