Pert v. State

148 So. 879, 25 Ala. App. 480, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 132
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 6, 1933·No. 4 Div. 929.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a conviction on a charge of manufacturing whisky. There is no bill of exceptions, in the absence of which we do not review the trial court in its rulings and on charges based upon the evidence. There being no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Pert v. State, 148 So. 879, 25 Ala. App. 480, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 132 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

148 So. 879 (Pert v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.