Vaughan v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Vaughan v. State

88 So. 374, 18 Ala. App. 57, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 48

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 1921

Docket7 Div. 704.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 So. 374 (Vaughan 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

Vaughan v. State, 88 So. 374, 18 Ala. App. 57, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 48 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The indictment was demurred to, but the judgment of the court fails to show any ruling on demurrer. In the absence of such ruling, there is nothing for this court to pass upon.

[2] The judgment shows a ruling on a motion to quash the indictment, but no motion to quash appears in the record. In the absence of such motion, this court will presume that the court’s action on the motion was without error.

[3,4] The admission of the testimony of the witness Watson to the statement made by the defendant at the still at the time the arrest was made was not error, for the reason that what defendant said there at the time was a part of the res gestae. Again, the crime of manufacturing liquor is continuous in its nature, and, when referring to the same still and location, proof of other “runs,” having been made would be competent evidence to establish the offense.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1] The indictment was demurred to, but the judgment of the court fails to show any ruling on demurrer. In the absence of such ruling, there is nothing for this court to pass upon.

[2] The judgment shows a ruling on a motion to quash the indictment, but no motion to quash appears in the record. In the absence of such motion, this court will presume that the court’s action on the motion was without error.

[3,4] The admission of the testimony of the witness Watson to the statement made by the defendant at the still at the time the arrest was made was not error, for the reason that what defendant said there at the time was a part of the res gestae. Again, the crime of manufacturing liquor is continuous in its nature, and, when referring to the same still and location, proof of other “runs,” having been made would be competent evidence to establish the offense.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 374, 18 Ala. App. 57, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughan-v-state-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack