Rogers v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Rogers v. State

117 So. 409, 22 Ala. App. 410, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 97

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 1928

Docket8 Div. 586.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 117 So. 409 (Rogers 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

Rogers v. State, 117 So. 409, 22 Ala. App. 410, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 97 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

The indictment in three counts charges (1) manufacturing whisky; (2 and 3) unlawful possession of a still, etc.

There was no evidence that whisky was actually manufactured, and there was no evidence that the beer found at the still contained alcohol, but there was evidence of an attempt to manufacture whisky, and for that reason the general affirmative charge as to count (1) was properly refused. This court and the Supreme Court have both held, and section 3307 of the Code of 1923 so provides, that a conviction for an attempt to manufacture whisky may be had under a count charging its manufacture.

The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury on the other counts.

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