Rutledge v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Rutledge v. State

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

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 2, 1926·No. 6 Div. 747.·Published

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

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.

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

Pincite

107 So. 42 (Rutledge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related