Ricketts v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Ricketts v. State

90 So. 137, 18 Ala. App. 162, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 137

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided April 12, 1921·No. 8 Div. 817.·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The affidavit charging that the defendant received or had in his possession for sale and sold prohibited beverages, viz. certain liquid drinks as beverages made in imitation of and intended as a substitute for beer, ale, or other alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors in violation of law, etc.

[1] The complaint was demurred to, and, .demurrer being overruled, pleas were filed and demurrers filed to the pleas. The pleadings present three propositions of law:

First: That the National Prohibition Law (41 Stat. 305) had the effect of annulling the state law wherever' the state law did not coincide with the federal statute. This proposition is decided adversely to appellant’s contention in State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 64 L. Ed. 946; Com. v. Nickerson, 236 Mass. 281, 128 N. E. 273, 10 A. L. R. 1568.

[2] Second: It is objected that the beverage sold or possessed for sale did not contain alcohol. This, too, is settled by the statute and Dees v. State, 16 Ala. App. 97, 75 South. 645.

[3] Third: It is further contended that the law under which this prosecution is brought is .an unreasonable exercise of the police power so as to be invasive of the various constitutional provisions, both state and federal, preserving the personal liberty of the citizen. The case of Jones v. State, 17 Ala. App. 444, 85 South. 839, expresses the views of this court on that question.

The several rulings of the court on the pleadings were without error.

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

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

The affidavit charging that the defendant received or had in his possession for sale and sold prohibited beverages, viz. certain liquid drinks as beverages made in imitation of and intended as a substitute for beer, ale, or other alcoholic, spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors in violation of law, etc.

[1] The complaint was demurred to, and, .demurrer being overruled, pleas were filed and demurrers filed to the pleas. The pleadings present three propositions of law:

First: That the National Prohibition Law (41 Stat. 305) had the effect of annulling the state law wherever' the state law did not coincide with the federal statute. This proposition is decided adversely to appellant’s contention in State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 64 L. Ed. 946; Com. v. Nickerson, 236 Mass. 281, 128 N. E. 273, 10 A. L. R. 1568.

[2] Second: It is objected that the beverage sold or possessed for sale did not contain alcohol. This, too, is settled by the statute and Dees v. State, 16 Ala. App. 97, 75 South. 645.

[3] Third: It is further contended that the law under which this prosecution is brought is .an unreasonable exercise of the police power so as to be invasive of the various constitutional provisions, both state and federal, preserving the personal liberty of the citizen. The case of Jones v. State, 17 Ala. App. 444, 85 South. 839, expresses the views of this court on that question.

The several rulings of the court on the pleadings were without error.

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

Affirmed.

Ricketts v. State, 90 So. 137, 18 Ala. App. 162, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 137 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

90 So. 137 (Ricketts v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related