Turner v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Turner v. State

70 So. 971, 14 Ala. App. 29, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 12

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 So. 971 (Turner 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

Turner v. State, 70 So. 971, 14 Ala. App. 29, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 12 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J.

(1, 2) The defendant was indicted at the August term, 1914, of the Walker county circuit court for selling “malt liquors contrary to law,” and was tried at the April term, 1915. The demurrer to the indictment, if one was interposed, is not set out in the record, and no ruling on demurrer is shown in the judgment of the court; hence, the argument of counsel predicated on such assumed ruling is inapt. The indictment was sufficient as charging the offense of selling malt liquors and to sustain the judgment of conviction.—Acts Special Session 1909, p. 90, § 291/2; Arrington v. State, 13 Ala. App. 359, 59 South. 385; Bush v. State, 12 Ala. App. 260, 67 South. 847; Harrison v. State, 13 Ala. App. 354, 69 South. 383; Whalley v. State, 13 Ala. App. 356, 69 South. 384.

(3) The evidence offered by the state tended to show a sale of “Schlitz” beer by the defendant to George Ruff, and was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to authorize the refusal of the affirmative charge.

There is no error in .the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, J.

(1, 2) The defendant was indicted at the August term, 1914, of the Walker county circuit court for selling “malt liquors contrary to law,” and was tried at the April term, 1915. The demurrer to the indictment, if one was interposed, is not set out in the record, and no ruling on demurrer is shown in the judgment of the court; hence, the argument of counsel predicated on such assumed ruling is inapt. The indictment was sufficient as charging the offense of selling malt liquors and to sustain the judgment of conviction.—Acts Special Session 1909, p. 90, § 291/2; Arrington v. State, 13 Ala. App. 359, 59 South. 385; Bush v. State, 12 Ala. App. 260, 67 South. 847; Harrison v. State, 13 Ala. App. 354, 69 South. 383; Whalley v. State, 13 Ala. App. 356, 69 South. 384.

(3) The evidence offered by the state tended to show a sale of “Schlitz” beer by the defendant to George Ruff, and was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to authorize the refusal of the affirmative charge.

There is no error in .the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 971, 14 Ala. App. 29, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack