Mixon v. State

70 So. 949, 14 Ala. App. 11, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 3
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 8, 1916·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

BROWN, J.

The defendant was tried under a complaint charging that he “manufactured, sold, kept for sale, gave away, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors without a license and contrary to law.” There is no evidence in the case showing or tending to show, that he sold, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors; but the evidence shows without dispute that the defendant had constructed a crude still out of a lard can and a water pipe, and had placed therein beer made from cane syrup and water, and was attempting to make whisky, but that, in fact, he had not manufactured a single drop. The appellant admits that he had made an attempt to manufacture prohibited liquors; but this is not an offense under our statutes. — Acts 1915, pp. 3, 8.

The evidence in the case was not sufficient to authorize a conviction.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Mixon v. State, 70 So. 949, 14 Ala. App. 11, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 3 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

70 So. 949 (Mixon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ihan
224 P. 935 (Washington Supreme Court, 1924)
Clements v. State
95 So. 831 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)
Mote v. State
87 So. 628 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920)
Shoemake v. State
86 So. 151 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920)
Ray v. State
84 So. 878 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920)
Corkran v. State
84 So. 743 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Corkran v. State
82 So. 560 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1919)