Rutledge v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Rutledge v. State

107 So. 42, 21 Ala. App. 247, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 44

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 1926

Docket6 Div. 747.

StatusPublished

This text of 107 So. 42 (Rutledge 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

Rutledge v. State, 107 So. 42, 21 Ala. App. 247, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 44 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws, in that she did “have in her possession, etc., prohibited liquors,” etc. The evidence made a case for the jury. Code 1923, § 4650. There was no motion for a new trial.

Appellant’s requested written charge which we have numbered 1 was, if not faulty otherwise, abstract and misleading, and properly refused. The possession might have been in both the husband and the wife.

Her requested written charge which we have numbered 2 was properly refused. Code 1923, § 4615; Dees v. State, 75 So. 645, 16 Ala. App. 97.

There is 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