Stringer v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Stringer v. State

119 So. 595, 22 Ala. App. 650, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 2

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket3 Div. 624.

StatusPublished

This text of 119 So. 595 (Stringer 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

Stringer v. State, 119 So. 595, 22 Ala. App. 650, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 2 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

There was no conflict in the evidence in this case, and the court properly directed a verdict for the state by giving the affirmative charge requested in writing. The Undisputed evidence made out a case against the appellant under the first three counts of the indictment. Each of these counts charged in the alternative that he “kept” spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, contrary to law. The evidence showed conclusively that at the time of his arrest the defendant had a one-gallon jug of whisky in a Ford car which he .was driving, and which was admittedly his whisky, and in his possession.; .

Appellant cites the case of Lyles v. State, 18 Ala. App 62, 88 So. 375, upon which authority he insists that a reversal of the judgment of conviction appealed from should be had. This' insistence is without merit. The indictment in the instant case differs materially from the indictment' in the Lyles Case to the extent that there is no analogy whatever. Here, as stated, the indictment charged that he “kept” spirituous, .vinous, or malt liquors, contrary to law. This averment is equivalent and is of the same import that he had in his possession the prohibited liquor. The mere fact that the whisky was “kept” by him or in his possession in the automobile in no manner varies or changes the status.

The rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence to which exceptions were reserved are so clearly free from injurious error they need not be discussed,

The record is regular in all things. Let the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

There was no conflict in the evidence in this case, and the court properly directed a verdict for the state by giving the affirmative charge requested in writing. The Undisputed evidence made out a case against the appellant under the first three counts of the indictment. Each of these counts charged in the alternative that he “kept” spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, contrary to law. The evidence showed conclusively that at the time of his arrest the defendant had a one-gallon jug of whisky in a Ford car which he .was driving, and which was admittedly his whisky, and in his possession.; .

Appellant cites the case of Lyles v. State, 18 Ala. App 62, 88 So. 375, upon which authority he insists that a reversal of the judgment of conviction appealed from should be had. This' insistence is without merit. The indictment in the instant case differs materially from the indictment' in the Lyles Case to the extent that there is no analogy whatever. Here, as stated, the indictment charged that he “kept” spirituous, .vinous, or malt liquors, contrary to law. This averment is equivalent and is of the same import that he had in his possession the prohibited liquor. The mere fact that the whisky was “kept” by him or in his possession in the automobile in no manner varies or changes the status.

The rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence to which exceptions were reserved are so clearly free from injurious error they need not be discussed,

The record is regular in all things. Let the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 So. 595, 22 Ala. App. 650, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stringer-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack