Prewitt v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Prewitt v. State

106 So. 52, 21 Ala. App. 64, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 215

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 1925

Docket6 Div. 533.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 So. 52 (Prewitt 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

Prewitt v. State, 106 So. 52, 21 Ala. App. 64, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 215 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

We can see no good purpose in discussing the facts of this ease in detail. The defendant was in immediate possession of a house in which was found a can containing several gallons of whisky. When the officers began to search the premises defendant went directly to this can, took it up, and started with it in the direction of a sink, used for washing milk bottles. One of the officers took the can away from him, and brought it away. The facts testified to and the inferences to be drawn from the fact *65 were sufficient upon which to base a verdict, which we will not disturb on motion for new trial. Maisel v. State, 17 Ala. App. 12, 81 So. 348.

Charge 4, refused to defendant, is an argument.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

BICE, J., not sitting.

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

SAMFORD, J.

We can see no good purpose in discussing the facts of this ease in detail. The defendant was in immediate possession of a house in which was found a can containing several gallons of whisky. When the officers began to search the premises defendant went directly to this can, took it up, and started with it in the direction of a sink, used for washing milk bottles. One of the officers took the can away from him, and brought it away. The facts testified to and the inferences to be drawn from the fact *65 were sufficient upon which to base a verdict, which we will not disturb on motion for new trial. Maisel v. State, 17 Ala. App. 12, 81 So. 348.

Charge 4, refused to defendant, is an argument.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

BICE, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 52, 21 Ala. App. 64, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prewitt-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack