Lyles v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lyles v. State

121 So. 7, 23 Ala. App. 81, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 69

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 1929

Docket8 Div. 760.

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 7 (Lyles 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

Lyles v. State, 121 So. 7, 23 Ala. App. 81, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 69 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RIGE, J.

One Lee Hill was put in jail on a. Friday night, and remained there continuously until, at least, the following Sunday morning. On the Saturday night that intervened, some' officers raided the said Lee Hill’s home, and found in one room of said home a still for making whisky, a large quantity of beer, and some whisky. In another room of the home was Lee I-Iill’s wife, and her children. In the room with the still, etc., the officers found this appellant. The still was hot, but there was testimony that it would remain hot, under tlje conditions described in the testimony, for a period of 24 hours. t

The above is substantially all that is shown by the state’s testimony. There was none offered on behalf of the appellant.

We are of the opinion that the general affirmative charge, requested by him, in his favor, should have been given. For the error in its refusal the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788.

Reversed and remanded.

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

RIGE, J.

One Lee Hill was put in jail on a. Friday night, and remained there continuously until, at least, the following Sunday morning. On the Saturday night that intervened, some' officers raided the said Lee Hill’s home, and found in one room of said home a still for making whisky, a large quantity of beer, and some whisky. In another room of the home was Lee I-Iill’s wife, and her children. In the room with the still, etc., the officers found this appellant. The still was hot, but there was testimony that it would remain hot, under tlje conditions described in the testimony, for a period of 24 hours. t

The above is substantially all that is shown by the state’s testimony. There was none offered on behalf of the appellant.

We are of the opinion that the general affirmative charge, requested by him, in his favor, should have been given. For the error in its refusal the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 7, 23 Ala. App. 81, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyles-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack