Tarkins v. State

108 Ala. 17
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided November 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

BRICKELL, C. J.

The single defect in the second count of the indictment, is, the omission to aver that the sale, gift, or delivery of the liquor, or intoxicating bitters, was ‘ ‘contrary to law.” This averment is found in the form prescribed by the Code, and without it, the courtfis not informed that each of the alternatives stated in the count, is an indictable offense. — Williams v. State, 91 Ala. 14. There was error in overruling the demurrer to this count.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, but the defendant will remain in custody until discharged by due course of law.

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

Tarkins v. State, 108 Ala. 17 (Ala. 1895).

108 Ala. 17 (Tarkins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Noltey v. State
144 So. 457 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1932)
Whaley v. State
69 So. 384 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Smith v. State
46 So. 753 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1908)
Guarreno v. State
42 So. 833 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)