Newman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Newman v. State

93 So. 55, 18 Ala. App. 430, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 119

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 1922

Docket4 Div. 699.

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 55 (Newman 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

Newman v. State, 93 So. 55, 18 Ala. App. 430, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 119 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted for the offense, of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic or spirituous liquors subsequent to January 25, 1919. Upon the trial of this cause the evidence was without conflict that the acts complained of in the indictment weré committed by the defendant. Several witnesses thus testified, and, as before stated, there was no testimony to the contrary.

The defendant, however, requested the court in writing to give the general affirmative charge in his behalf, and made known to the court that the request was based upon the ground that the law under which the defendant was indicted (Acts 1919, p. 16, § 15) was suspended, so to speak, by the laws of Congress regulating this subject (41 Stat. 305). This presents the only material question raised, and as this court has held in the case of Powell v. State, 90 South. 138, 1 that there is no merit in this contention, we deem it sufficient, without further discussion, to affirm the judgment of conviction on authority of that case. Powell y. State, supra.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 101.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted for the offense, of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic or spirituous liquors subsequent to January 25, 1919. Upon the trial of this cause the evidence was without conflict that the acts complained of in the indictment weré committed by the defendant. Several witnesses thus testified, and, as before stated, there was no testimony to the contrary.

The defendant, however, requested the court in writing to give the general affirmative charge in his behalf, and made known to the court that the request was based upon the ground that the law under which the defendant was indicted (Acts 1919, p. 16, § 15) was suspended, so to speak, by the laws of Congress regulating this subject (41 Stat. 305). This presents the only material question raised, and as this court has held in the case of Powell v. State, 90 South. 138, 1 that there is no merit in this contention, we deem it sufficient, without further discussion, to affirm the judgment of conviction on authority of that case. Powell y. State, supra.

Affirmed.

1

Ante, p. 101.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 55, 18 Ala. App. 430, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack