Milam v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Milam v. State

115 So. 924, 22 Ala. App. 683

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 1928

Docket7 Div. 358.

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 924 (Milam 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

Milam v. State, 115 So. 924, 22 Ala. App. 683 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully being in possession of a still, etc., to be,used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors, etc. The court, sitting en banc, has read the entire record, and we find no evidence tending to connect appellant with the possession of the still, which was found some distance from his home. Mere suspicion, however strong, will not take the place of legal evidence. For the error in refusing to give, at appellant’s request, the general affirmative charge in his favor, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully being in possession of a still, etc., to be,used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors, etc. The court, sitting en banc, has read the entire record, and we find no evidence tending to connect appellant with the possession of the still, which was found some distance from his home. Mere suspicion, however strong, will not take the place of legal evidence. For the error in refusing to give, at appellant’s request, the general affirmative charge in his favor, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 924, 22 Ala. App. 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milam-v-state-alactapp-1928.