Taggett v. City of Tuscaloosa

Alabama Court of Appeals

Taggett v. City of Tuscaloosa

67 So. 780, 12 Ala. App. 617, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 214

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 So. 780 (Taggett 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

Taggett v. City of Tuscaloosa, 67 So. 780, 12 Ala. App. 617, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 214 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

Tbe points made against tbe ordinance, for a violation of which tbe defendant was tried and convicted, we have disposed of adversely to tbe appellant’s contentions in tbe case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra, 67 South. 778.

Tbe court properly admitted evidence of a sale made by tbe defendant of a bottle of beer to one Crider a few days prior to tbe time when her premises were searched and a large quantity' of beer bottles, empty whisky cases, etc., together with a few full botles of beer and whisky, was found by tbe searching officers. The court limited tbe evidence of tbe sale as going alone to show an unlawful intent on tbe part of tbe defendant in having in her possession tbe prohibited liquors, and for that purpose it was admissible.—Allison v. State, 1 Ala. App. 206, 55 South. 453; Rosenberg v. State, 5 Ala. App. 196, 59 South. 366.

The bottle of beer was identified as tbe one sold to the witness by tbe defendant, and there was no error com[619]*619mitted in permitting it to be introduced in evidence.—Harris v. State, 9 Ala. App. 87, 64 South. 352; Phillips v. State, 156 Ala. 140, 47 South. 245.

The tendencies of the evidence'supported the charge made against the defendant, and its weight and sufficiency, involving the question of her guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury (Tice v. State, 3 Ala. App. 164, 57 South. 506), and the court quite properly refused the general charge for the defendant and submitted the case to the jury.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

Tbe points made against tbe ordinance, for a violation of which tbe defendant was tried and convicted, we have disposed of adversely to tbe appellant’s contentions in tbe case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra, 67 South. 778.

Tbe court properly admitted evidence of a sale made by tbe defendant of a bottle of beer to one Crider a few days prior to tbe time when her premises were searched and a large quantity' of beer bottles, empty whisky cases, etc., together with a few full botles of beer and whisky, was found by tbe searching officers. The court limited tbe evidence of tbe sale as going alone to show an unlawful intent on tbe part of tbe defendant in having in her possession tbe prohibited liquors, and for that purpose it was admissible.—Allison v. State, 1 Ala. App. 206, 55 South. 453; Rosenberg v. State, 5 Ala. App. 196, 59 South. 366.

The bottle of beer was identified as tbe one sold to the witness by tbe defendant, and there was no error com[619]*619mitted in permitting it to be introduced in evidence.—Harris v. State, 9 Ala. App. 87, 64 South. 352; Phillips v. State, 156 Ala. 140, 47 South. 245.

The tendencies of the evidence'supported the charge made against the defendant, and its weight and sufficiency, involving the question of her guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury (Tice v. State, 3 Ala. App. 164, 57 South. 506), and the court quite properly refused the general charge for the defendant and submitted the case to the jury.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 So. 780, 12 Ala. App. 617, 1915 Ala. App. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taggett-v-city-of-tuscaloosa-alactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack