Rikard v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Rikard v. State

106 So. 347, 21 Ala. App. 160

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 1925

Docket1 Div. 616.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 So. 347 (Rikard 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

Rikard v. State, 106 So. 347, 21 Ala. App. 160 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment in this case contained two counts, and charged the defendant in the first count with the offense of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol. Count 2 charged that he did manufacture, sell, give away, or have in his possession, a still, apparatus, appliance or other device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages, contrary to law.

The judgment entry shows that the first count of the indictment was nol prossed, and that the defendant was arraigned under count 2 of the indictment only. As an answer to said count, the defendant interposed special pleas in bar, tbe substance of which was to the effect that he had theretofore, in a court of competent jurisdiction, been prosecuted and pleaded guilty on tbe charge of possessing prohibited liquors, and that the liquor in question was made by him on the same still of which he is charged in this case with having in his possession, etc; The state *161 demurred to said pleas, and the court sustained the demurrers.

As there is direct authority on this proposition, we must hold that the pleas were no answer to this indictment, and the court properly sustained the demurrers thereto. Day v. State, 19 Ala. App. 307, 97 So. 117, appears to be exactly in point with the case at bar. Upon authority of the Day Case, supra, the judgment appealed from here is affirmed; this being only question presented by the record upon which this appeal is predicated.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment in this case contained two counts, and charged the defendant in the first count with the offense of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol. Count 2 charged that he did manufacture, sell, give away, or have in his possession, a still, apparatus, appliance or other device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages, contrary to law.

The judgment entry shows that the first count of the indictment was nol prossed, and that the defendant was arraigned under count 2 of the indictment only. As an answer to said count, the defendant interposed special pleas in bar, tbe substance of which was to the effect that he had theretofore, in a court of competent jurisdiction, been prosecuted and pleaded guilty on tbe charge of possessing prohibited liquors, and that the liquor in question was made by him on the same still of which he is charged in this case with having in his possession, etc; The state *161 demurred to said pleas, and the court sustained the demurrers.

As there is direct authority on this proposition, we must hold that the pleas were no answer to this indictment, and the court properly sustained the demurrers thereto. Day v. State, 19 Ala. App. 307, 97 So. 117, appears to be exactly in point with the case at bar. Upon authority of the Day Case, supra, the judgment appealed from here is affirmed; this being only question presented by the record upon which this appeal is predicated.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 347, 21 Ala. App. 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rikard-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack