Mallory v. City of Tuscaloosa

Alabama Court of Appeals

Mallory v. City of Tuscaloosa

108 So. 650, 21 Ala. App. 394, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 161

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 18, 1926

Docket6 Div. 691.

StatusPublished

This text of 108 So. 650 (Mallory v. City of Tuscaloosa) 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

Mallory v. City of Tuscaloosa, 108 So. 650, 21 Ala. App. 394, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 161 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

*395 RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of tlie offense of violating an ordinance of the city of Tuscaloosa, specified, by having whisky in her possession.

The portions of the oral charge of the trial court complained of here will not be reviewed, since no exception was reserved thereto in the manner prescribed by law. Reeder v. State, 210 Ala. 114, 97 So. 73; Ex parte State ex rel. Smith, etc. (Montgomery v. State), 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785.

The court was acting within its rightful province in sentencing the defendant to work out the fine and costs at hard labor for tlie city at the rate of 40 cents per day, and in imposing six months’ hard labor for the city as additional punishment to that imposed by the jury. Guin v. City of Tuscaloosa, ante, p. 61, 106 So. 64.

’Tlie evidence obtained by search of defendant’s residence was properly admitted whether or not the officers had a search warrant for the premises when the search was made. Banks v. State, 207 Ala. 179, 93 So. 293, 24 A. L. R. 1359.

The evidence was in conflict. There was no error in refusing the general affirmative charge requested by appellant.

We find nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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