Sammitt v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Sammitt v. State

104 So. 925, 20 Ala. App. 694

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 1925

Docket8 Div. 214.

StatusPublished

This text of 104 So. 925 (Sammitt 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

Sammitt v. State, 104 So. 925, 20 Ala. App. 694 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment contained two counts. Count 1 chargpd that defendant *695 did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol. Count 2, in proper form and substance, charged him with the unlawful possession of a still, etc. The conviction rested upon the second count, and the evidence was ample to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction. This evidence was without dispute or conflict, and an examination of the record, including each ruling of the court to which an exception was reserved, fails to disclose any error of record, and the court committed no reversible error in any of its several rulings. Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment contained two counts. Count 1 chargpd that defendant *695 did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors or beverages, a part of which was alcohol. Count 2, in proper form and substance, charged him with the unlawful possession of a still, etc. The conviction rested upon the second count, and the evidence was ample to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction. This evidence was without dispute or conflict, and an examination of the record, including each ruling of the court to which an exception was reserved, fails to disclose any error of record, and the court committed no reversible error in any of its several rulings. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 925, 20 Ala. App. 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sammitt-v-state-alactapp-1925.