Spence v. City of Tuscaloosa

Alabama Court of Appeals

Spence v. City of Tuscaloosa

96 So. 464, 19 Ala. App. 231, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 104

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1923

Docket6 Div. 175.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 So. 464 (Spence v. City of Tuscaloosa) 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

Spence v. City of Tuscaloosa, 96 So. 464, 19 Ala. App. 231, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 104 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The prosecution against this defendant originated in the recorder’s court of the city of Tuscaloosa, and was for the violation of a city ordinance prohibiting the sale, keeping for sale, or haying in pos-, session whisky or other prohibited liquors. From a judgment of conviction in the recorder’s court, the defendant appealed to the circuit court, and was there tried upon a complaint filed by the áttorney for the city charging the same offense.

From a judgment of conviction in the circuit court this appeal is taken, but no question is presented for the consideration of this court, as no assignment of error is made as the law requires. We must therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court, for want of assignment of errors. Monroe Washington v. Tuscaloosa (Ala. App.) 96 South. v 464; 1 Hellner v. City of Montgomery, 16 Ala. App. 366, 77 South. 978; Crowder v. City of Montgomery, 16 Ala. App. 686, 81 South. 134.

Affirmed.

FOSTER, J., not sitting.'

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