Peters v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Peters v. State

148 So. 923, 25 Ala. App. 666

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 6, 1933·No. 7 Div. 974.·Published

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

The indictment followed literally — the necessary description, etc., of premises involved being properly inserted — the form prescribed by the statute in the Code defining, etc., the offense. See Michie’s Code 1928, § 3289. It -was not subject to demurrer. See Code 1923, § 4527.

There is no bill of exceptions. No error being apparent of record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

The indictment followed literally — the necessary description, etc., of premises involved being properly inserted — the form prescribed by the statute in the Code defining, etc., the offense. See Michie’s Code 1928, § 3289. It -was not subject to demurrer. See Code 1923, § 4527.

There is no bill of exceptions. No error being apparent of record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Peters v. State, 148 So. 923, 25 Ala. App. 666 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

148 So. 923 (Peters v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.