Shivers v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Shivers v. State

61 So. 467, 7 Ala. App. 110, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 29

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 So. 467 (Shivers 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

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

Pincite

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]*112The 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

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]*112The 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 467, 7 Ala. App. 110, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shivers-v-state-alactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack