Smith v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

106 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 694

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 1926

Docket7 Div. 125.

StatusPublished

This text of 106 So. 924 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 106 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 694 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellants were jointly indicted and tried for the offense of violating the prohibition laws by distilling, etc., alcoholic liquors, and having in possession a still, etc., to be used for that purpose. The offense charged occurred more than two year's prior to the finding of the indictment, and it appears that the prosecuting witnesses were not on good terms with appellants at the time the prosecution was instituted. The indictment, trial, and conviction, though, of both appellants, seem to have been in all things regular. The evidence was legally sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury. There was no motion for a new trial. No exception was taken to, as, indeed, there was no error in, any ruling of the court upon the admission or rejection of testimony. No error appears in the record. The judgment must be and is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellants were jointly indicted and tried for the offense of violating the prohibition laws by distilling, etc., alcoholic liquors, and having in possession a still, etc., to be used for that purpose. The offense charged occurred more than two year's prior to the finding of the indictment, and it appears that the prosecuting witnesses were not on good terms with appellants at the time the prosecution was instituted. The indictment, trial, and conviction, though, of both appellants, seem to have been in all things regular. The evidence was legally sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury. There was no motion for a new trial. No exception was taken to, as, indeed, there was no error in, any ruling of the court upon the admission or rejection of testimony. No error appears in the record. The judgment must be and is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-alactapp-1926.