Shivers v. State

61 So. 467, 7 Ala. App. 110, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 29
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 6, 1913·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

Conviction upon each of the two separate counts' of the indictment is authorized. — Acts 1909 (Sp. Sess.) p. 91, § BO. Proof of different sales offered under the different counts within the punishable period was competent evidence and properly admitted.

[112] The payment of a retail liquor dealer’s special United States revenue tax or license, covering the place and period in question, is made by statute prima facie evidence that .the party paying the same sold, or offered for •.sale, the prohibited liquor; and such evidence is therefore entitled to be considered by the jury with more weight than a mere circumstance in the chain of evidence. — Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 84, § 22%; Carson v. State, 5 Ala. App. 177, 59 South. 706. Charge A, requested by the defendant, was therefore properly refused. We find no error in the record.

Affirmed.

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

Shivers v. State, 61 So. 467, 7 Ala. App. 110, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 29 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913).

61 So. 467 (Shivers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moragne v. State
74 So. 862 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1917)
Thames v. State
64 So. 648 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Harwell v. State
65 So. 702 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)