Sadler v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Sadler v. State

51 So. 564, 165 Ala. 109, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 34

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 3, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 So. 564 (Sadler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sadler v. State, 51 So. 564, 165 Ala. 109, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 34 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

— Defendant in the trial court ivas convicted of selling whisky in the first half of the month [111]*111of June, 1905. The state was permitted to draiv from a witness for the defendant the fact that about the time of the offense sworn to he had shipped whisky in considerable quantity to the defendant from Atlanta., Ga. In onr. judgment this evidence was competent and relevant to the issue, as corroborative of what had been sworn by the state’s witnesses, and was in no degree affected by any records the express company may have kept of such shipments. Such records would have been incompetent.

Charge 3 was properly refused, for the reason that it assumes that the good character of the defendant had been established. That was a question for the jury.

Affirmed.

Anderson, McClellan, and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

— Defendant in the trial court ivas convicted of selling whisky in the first half of the month [111]*111of June, 1905. The state was permitted to draiv from a witness for the defendant the fact that about the time of the offense sworn to he had shipped whisky in considerable quantity to the defendant from Atlanta., Ga. In onr. judgment this evidence was competent and relevant to the issue, as corroborative of what had been sworn by the state’s witnesses, and was in no degree affected by any records the express company may have kept of such shipments. Such records would have been incompetent.

Charge 3 was properly refused, for the reason that it assumes that the good character of the defendant had been established. That was a question for the jury.

Affirmed.

Anderson, McClellan, and Mayfield, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 So. 564, 165 Ala. 109, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadler-v-state-ala-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack