Neely v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Neely v. State

103 So. 386, 20 Ala. App. 538, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 60

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1925

Docket8 Div. 216.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 103 So. 386 (Neely 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

Neely v. State, 103 So. 386, 20 Ala. App. 538, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 60 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

-The defendant was convicted of tbe offense of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors contrary to law, and be appeals. Tbe defendant introduced no evidence in bis own behalf.

Tbe testimony offered by tbe state showed that a complete still was found in operation; that tbe defendant and two others were there; that there were six barrels of beer at the still; that there was beer in tbe still; that the beer was such as was used at a great many stills for making liquor; that sthe defendant was doing something about tbe cap of tbe still; that tbe defendant ran when tbe officers approached; that tbe beer was fermented, and contained alcohol; that defendant was working and moving around about the still; that be was moving around from tbe furnace end of tbe still to the cap; that tbe still was boiling, but there was no whisky running out; that a gun loaded with B. B. shot was lying about six or eight feet from tbe still; that an overcoat which tbe defendant said was bis, and which be got after his arrest was lying about six or eight feet from tbe still; that there was a small amount of whisky there (at tbe still).

Upon this evidence, tbe defendant requested in writing tbe trial court to give tbe gen *539 eral affirmative charge in his behalf. Counsel for appellant has cited a number of decisions of this court in support of his com tention that there was error to reverse the case in the court’s refusal to give at defendant’s request the general affirmative charge in his favor.

It would serve no useful "purpose to discuss these decisions separately, but suffice it to say that each of them is easily and obviously distinguishable on the facts from the instant case.

Under the authority of the decision in the case of Glaze v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 629, 1 and the references therein given, we hold that there was ample evidence in this case to be submitted to the jury, and to support the verdict returned.

The trial court properly allowed the evidence as to the finding of the shotgun at the still. Masters v. State, 18 Ala. App. 614, 94 S. 249.

No prejudicial error being apparent on the record, the case will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 7.

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

RICE, J.

-The defendant was convicted of tbe offense of distilling or manufacturing alcoholic liquors contrary to law, and be appeals. Tbe defendant introduced no evidence in bis own behalf.

Tbe testimony offered by tbe state showed that a complete still was found in operation; that tbe defendant and two others were there; that there were six barrels of beer at the still; that there was beer in tbe still; that the beer was such as was used at a great many stills for making liquor; that sthe defendant was doing something about tbe cap of tbe still; that tbe defendant ran when tbe officers approached; that tbe beer was fermented, and contained alcohol; that defendant was working and moving around about the still; that be was moving around from tbe furnace end of tbe still to the cap; that tbe still was boiling, but there was no whisky running out; that a gun loaded with B. B. shot was lying about six or eight feet from tbe still; that an overcoat which tbe defendant said was bis, and which be got after his arrest was lying about six or eight feet from tbe still; that there was a small amount of whisky there (at tbe still).

Upon this evidence, tbe defendant requested in writing tbe trial court to give tbe gen *539 eral affirmative charge in his behalf. Counsel for appellant has cited a number of decisions of this court in support of his com tention that there was error to reverse the case in the court’s refusal to give at defendant’s request the general affirmative charge in his favor.

It would serve no useful "purpose to discuss these decisions separately, but suffice it to say that each of them is easily and obviously distinguishable on the facts from the instant case.

Under the authority of the decision in the case of Glaze v. State (Ala. App.) 100 So. 629, 1 and the references therein given, we hold that there was ample evidence in this case to be submitted to the jury, and to support the verdict returned.

The trial court properly allowed the evidence as to the finding of the shotgun at the still. Masters v. State, 18 Ala. App. 614, 94 S. 249.

No prejudicial error being apparent on the record, the case will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 7.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 386, 20 Ala. App. 538, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neely-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack