Oldacre v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Oldacre v. State

75 So. 827, 16 Ala. App. 151, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 210

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1917

Docket8 Div. 476.

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 75 So. 827 (Oldacre 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

Oldacre v. State, 75 So. 827, 16 Ala. App. 151, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 210 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The defendant was convicted of having in his possession at one time more than two quarts of spirituous liquors, “as charged in the second count” of the complaint. This was an acquittal of the charges embodied in the first count, and the rulings of the court as to this count are not presented for review. Brewer v. State, 83 Ala. 113, 3 South. 816, 3 Am. St. Rep. 693.

[2] The contention of the appellant that it was not a violation of the law for the defendant to have in his possession more than one-half gallon of spirituous liquor was without merit. Acts 1915, p. 44, § 12; O’Rear v. State, 15 Ala. App. 17, 72 South. 505 ; Howard v. State, 15 Ala. App. 411, 73 South. 559; Moragne v. State, ante, p. 26, 74 South. 862.

The demurrers to the second count of the complaint were properly overruled, and charges 1, 5, and 6 were refused, without error.

[3] There was no evidence offered on the trial showing that the defendant sold, offered for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors, and the only circumstance that could possibly justify the submission of the case to the jury is that the liquor discovered by the officers was concealed on the defendant’s premises. This circumstance is fully explained by the facts attending its discovery and the res gestae of the occurrence, showing clearly that the defendant had no knowledge that the liquor was on his premises, or at least that it was not in his custody and he had no control over it or title or interest in it.

If the fact that the liquor was concealed on the defendant’s premises had not been fully explained by the res gestae of its dis *152 covery by the officers, but the explanation had come after time for meditation and the concoction of an excuse, a different question would be presented.

We, therefore, hold that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant, as requested, and for this error the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The defendant was convicted of having in his possession at one time more than two quarts of spirituous liquors, “as charged in the second count” of the complaint. This was an acquittal of the charges embodied in the first count, and the rulings of the court as to this count are not presented for review. Brewer v. State, 83 Ala. 113, 3 South. 816, 3 Am. St. Rep. 693.

[2] The contention of the appellant that it was not a violation of the law for the defendant to have in his possession more than one-half gallon of spirituous liquor was without merit. Acts 1915, p. 44, § 12; O’Rear v. State, 15 Ala. App. 17, 72 South. 505 ; Howard v. State, 15 Ala. App. 411, 73 South. 559; Moragne v. State, ante, p. 26, 74 South. 862.

The demurrers to the second count of the complaint were properly overruled, and charges 1, 5, and 6 were refused, without error.

[3] There was no evidence offered on the trial showing that the defendant sold, offered for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors, and the only circumstance that could possibly justify the submission of the case to the jury is that the liquor discovered by the officers was concealed on the defendant’s premises. This circumstance is fully explained by the facts attending its discovery and the res gestae of the occurrence, showing clearly that the defendant had no knowledge that the liquor was on his premises, or at least that it was not in his custody and he had no control over it or title or interest in it.

If the fact that the liquor was concealed on the defendant’s premises had not been fully explained by the res gestae of its dis *152 covery by the officers, but the explanation had come after time for meditation and the concoction of an excuse, a different question would be presented.

We, therefore, hold that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant, as requested, and for this error the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 So. 827, 16 Ala. App. 151, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oldacre-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack