Snyder v. State Ex Rel. Elmore

Supreme Court of Alabama

Snyder v. State Ex Rel. Elmore

92 So. 170, 207 Ala. 147, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 9

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 19, 1922

Docket3 Div. 534.

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 170 (Snyder v. State Ex Rel. Elmore) 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

Snyder v. State Ex Rel. Elmore, 92 So. 170, 207 Ala. 147, 1922 Ala. LEXIS 9 (Ala. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MIDLER, J.

This is a petition to have condemned, forfeited, and sold a five pas *148 senger, 1916 model, Buick automobile, ira- [ der section 13 of General Act 1919, p. 13.1 W. Snyder is tbo defendant; and Sam Cohen files claim of ownership. The defendant and claimant reside in Columbus, Ga.

The defendant transported or conveyed in the automobile from a point, near the Georgia line, in Alabama to Montgomery,. 50 gallons of corn whisky in five kegs of 10 gallons each for an unlawful purpose. The whisky and automobile were, seized by the officers of the law and the defendant was arrested in Montgomery.

[1] The testimony was in open court before the presiding judge. He saw the witnesses, heard them testify, could observe their demeanor, and the finding of facts by the court is equivalent to the verdict of a jury when the testimony is ore tenus. Christie v. Durden, 205 Ala. 571, 88 South. 607; Gray v. Handy, 204 Ala. 559, 86 South. 548.

[2] The evidence is in conflict as to the ownership of the automobile. There is evidence that it belonged to the claimant, and that he had no notice, actual or constructive, that it would be used for transporting or conveying whisky in Alabama for an unlawful purpose. There are strong and pointed facts and circumstances indicating that the automobile was the property of the defendant. The trial court held: “That the claim of ownership filed by Sam Cohen is not sustained by the evidence.”

There was sufficient evidence to support this finding of fact by the court. We cannot declare from the record that the trial court was clearly wrong. After reading the testimony, we are convinced that the conclusion of the court is correct, and its decree, condemning the automobile, ordering it forfeited to the state and sold, will be affirmed. Gen. Acts 1919, p. 13, sec. 13.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER, JJ., concur.

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