Morris v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Morris v. State

104 So. 867, 21 Ala. App. 24, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 179

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 1925

Docket4 Div. 109.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 So. 867 (Morris 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

Morris v. State, 104 So. 867, 21 Ala. App. 24, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 179 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The sheriff of Pike county, together with three other parties, found a small galvanized iron still of about 30 gallon capacity in full operation on Saturday night about 12 o’clock. There were present a.t the still Ed Corley, a white man, near whose house the still was located, and two negroes, one of whom was the defendant. Ed Corley accepted full responsibility for the possession and operation of the still, and undertook to exonerate the two negroes, whom he says had just come by and stopped, did nothing, and had no interest either in the still or its product, and did not work -for him, but -lived a mile away on another farm. The state then introduced the wife of Corley, who testified that defendant, with some others, was at her house “some time in the night,” and that some of them carried off some beer, but who she did not know.

Coupled with the evidence that defendant was in the crowd that carried the beer to the still, the fact that defendant was at a late hour of the night at the still where whisky was being made, and in friendly conversation with the party who admits being in open violation of law, made a jury question as to the guilt or innocence of defendant.

The verdict of the jury is referable to either count in the indictment. 4 Mich. Dig. p. 418, § 600 (2).

The other exceptions have been examined and found to be without merit.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The sheriff of Pike county, together with three other parties, found a small galvanized iron still of about 30 gallon capacity in full operation on Saturday night about 12 o’clock. There were present a.t the still Ed Corley, a white man, near whose house the still was located, and two negroes, one of whom was the defendant. Ed Corley accepted full responsibility for the possession and operation of the still, and undertook to exonerate the two negroes, whom he says had just come by and stopped, did nothing, and had no interest either in the still or its product, and did not work -for him, but -lived a mile away on another farm. The state then introduced the wife of Corley, who testified that defendant, with some others, was at her house “some time in the night,” and that some of them carried off some beer, but who she did not know.

Coupled with the evidence that defendant was in the crowd that carried the beer to the still, the fact that defendant was at a late hour of the night at the still where whisky was being made, and in friendly conversation with the party who admits being in open violation of law, made a jury question as to the guilt or innocence of defendant.

The verdict of the jury is referable to either count in the indictment. 4 Mich. Dig. p. 418, § 600 (2).

The other exceptions have been examined and found to be without merit.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 867, 21 Ala. App. 24, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack