Murphy v. State

104 So. 686, 20 Ala. App. 624, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 130
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 26, 1925·No. 8 Div. 250.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The state witnesses found a still in the woods on land belonging to a Mrs. South. They lay in wait from daylight until about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, when defendant and another came through the woods, looked at the beer, and went on through the woods a piece from the still and sat down near a tree; they then got up and began throwing something. This took about 15 minutes. Both parties were then arrested charged with possessing a still. It was testified that a pair of overalls with a torn leg was found at the still, and another witness testified that about two weeks previous he had s^en defendant wearing a pair of overalls with á torn leg, but as to which leg he could not say. This is not sufficient evidence *625 upon which to base a conviction. Ex parte Davis ex rel., etc., 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Hobdy v. State, 20 Ala. App. 44, 100 So. 571; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala. App. 249, 96 So. 655; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, 95 So. 563.

The court erred in refusing to give the general charge for defendant as requested, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Murphy v. State, 104 So. 686, 20 Ala. App. 624, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 130 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

104 So. 686 (Murphy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hightower v. State
123 So. 287 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)