McLean v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

McLean v. State

86 So. 117, 17 Ala. App. 543, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 178

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 29, 1920·No. 4 Div. 624.·Published

Opinion

■BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment, charged the defendant with a violation of the act known as the “Weakley Bone Dry Law,” and' was properly framed under section 15 of said act. Acts 1919, p. 16, § 15. In short, the defendant was indicted and convicted of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic-liquor.

The evidence was in conflict; therefore the only question presented upon this appeal, the refusal of ,the general affirmative charge for defendant, must fail, as the defendant was clearly not entitled to this charge.

The record is entirely free from all error. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

■BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment, charged the defendant with a violation of the act known as the “Weakley Bone Dry Law,” and' was properly framed under section 15 of said act. Acts 1919, p. 16, § 15. In short, the defendant was indicted and convicted of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic-liquor.

The evidence was in conflict; therefore the only question presented upon this appeal, the refusal of ,the general affirmative charge for defendant, must fail, as the defendant was clearly not entitled to this charge.

The record is entirely free from all error. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McLean v. State, 86 So. 117, 17 Ala. App. 543, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 178 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

86 So. 117 (McLean v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.