Matthews v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Matthews v. State

112 So. 924, 22 Ala. App. 682

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 1927

Docket4 Div. 251.

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 924 (Matthews 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

Matthews v. State, 112 So. 924, 22 Ala. App. 682 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

Under the conflicting evidence in this ease a jury question was presented. The court, therefore, properly refused the affirmative charge, which the defendant requested in writing. The evidence of the two state’s witnesses was positive and direct, and tended to show that they stood within a few feet from the defendant, and saw him making whisky upon a small still outfit, which- they destroyed. They testified • that he was working at and with the still, that whisky was running from the still, and upon the approach of the officers he and another party ran away. He (defendant) was arrested a few minutes later at his brother’s house, which was a short distance away. The court’s rulings on the admission of evidence, to which exception was reserved, were without error. The evidence was ample to justify the jury in its verdict of “guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment.” The record proper appears regular in all things. Let the judgment of conviction, from which this appeal was taken, stand affirmed. Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

Under the conflicting evidence in this ease a jury question was presented. The court, therefore, properly refused the affirmative charge, which the defendant requested in writing. The evidence of the two state’s witnesses was positive and direct, and tended to show that they stood within a few feet from the defendant, and saw him making whisky upon a small still outfit, which- they destroyed. They testified • that he was working at and with the still, that whisky was running from the still, and upon the approach of the officers he and another party ran away. He (defendant) was arrested a few minutes later at his brother’s house, which was a short distance away. The court’s rulings on the admission of evidence, to which exception was reserved, were without error. The evidence was ample to justify the jury in its verdict of “guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment.” The record proper appears regular in all things. Let the judgment of conviction, from which this appeal was taken, stand affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 924, 22 Ala. App. 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-state-alactapp-1927.