Wafer v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wafer v. State

104 So. 926, 20 Ala. App. 700

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1925

Docket6 Div. 679.

StatusPublished

This text of 104 So. 926 (Wafer 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

Wafer v. State, 104 So. 926, 20 Ala. App. 700 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. One Reeder, a deputy sheriff, arrested defendant and another on a highway. Defendant was riding upon the front seat of a Ford car, beside another, who was driving the- car, and at the time there was a five-gallon can of whisky in the car. When the defendant was arrested, he said: “Cap, you’ve caught me.” Defendant offered evidence to prove that the liquor was being transported by the driver of the car, without his (the defendant’s) knowledge or participation. Upon the whole evidence, we are of the opinion that the case was properly submitted to the jury. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., Harbin v. State, 210 Ala. 55, 97 So. 426. The question allowed to be asked the defendant on his cross-examination, regarding his failure to have a certain witness subpoenaed, did not show an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial judge. May v. State, 16 Ala. App. 541, 79 So. 677. The argument of the solicitor, complained of, was permissible. Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala. App. 471, 93 So. 46. We have examined all the .exceptions reserved by the defendant, and find no prejudicial error in any of the rulings complained of. Let the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. One Reeder, a deputy sheriff, arrested defendant and another on a highway. Defendant was riding upon the front seat of a Ford car, beside another, who was driving the- car, and at the time there was a five-gallon can of whisky in the car. When the defendant was arrested, he said: “Cap, you’ve caught me.” Defendant offered evidence to prove that the liquor was being transported by the driver of the car, without his (the defendant’s) knowledge or participation. Upon the whole evidence, we are of the opinion that the case was properly submitted to the jury. Ex parte State ex rel., etc., Harbin v. State, 210 Ala. 55, 97 So. 426. The question allowed to be asked the defendant on his cross-examination, regarding his failure to have a certain witness subpoenaed, did not show an abuse of the discretion reposed in the trial judge. May v. State, 16 Ala. App. 541, 79 So. 677. The argument of the solicitor, complained of, was permissible. Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala. App. 471, 93 So. 46. We have examined all the .exceptions reserved by the defendant, and find no prejudicial error in any of the rulings complained of. Let the judgment be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 926, 20 Ala. App. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wafer-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack