Ward v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Ward v. State

121 So. 926, 23 Ala. App. 685

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1929

Docket8 Div. 692.

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 926 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 121 So. 926, 23 Ala. App. 685 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

As to the charge contained in the first count of the indictment, upon which this appellant was convicted, the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge. Taking and considering the evidence in its most unfavorable light to defendant, it might be said that a jury question was presented thereby, if the charge or accusation had been for unlawfully possess *686 ing prohibited liquors; but as to the charge that he did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic liquors, etc., there was no evidence in this case to sustain it, and the court should have so held.

This case is similar in many respects, so far as the facts are concerned, to the case of Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848. Upon authority of the Dickey Case, supra, we hold that appellant’s motion for new trial should have been granted, and that there was error to a reversal in overruling said motion. See, also, Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830; Knight v. State, 19 Ala. App. 296, 97 So. 163; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Burnett v. State, 21 Ala. App. 274, 107 So. 321; Twilley v. State, 20 Ala. App. 263, 101 So. 505; Matthews v. State, 21 Ala. App. 38, 104 So. 884.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

As to the charge contained in the first count of the indictment, upon which this appellant was convicted, the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge. Taking and considering the evidence in its most unfavorable light to defendant, it might be said that a jury question was presented thereby, if the charge or accusation had been for unlawfully possess *686 ing prohibited liquors; but as to the charge that he did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic liquors, etc., there was no evidence in this case to sustain it, and the court should have so held.

This case is similar in many respects, so far as the facts are concerned, to the case of Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848. Upon authority of the Dickey Case, supra, we hold that appellant’s motion for new trial should have been granted, and that there was error to a reversal in overruling said motion. See, also, Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830; Knight v. State, 19 Ala. App. 296, 97 So. 163; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 So. 788; Burnett v. State, 21 Ala. App. 274, 107 So. 321; Twilley v. State, 20 Ala. App. 263, 101 So. 505; Matthews v. State, 21 Ala. App. 38, 104 So. 884.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 926, 23 Ala. App. 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack