Webb v. State

93 So. 215, 18 Ala. App. 477, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 158
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 9, 1922·No. 8 Div. 839.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, 3.

The first count in the indictment charged the defendant with manufacturing liquor after January 25, 1919. A verdict was rendered by the jury, specifically convicting the defendant under the second count. This had the effect of acquitting defendant of the charge embraced in the first count. Brown v. State, 15 Ala. App. 180, 72 South. 757; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 32, 10 South. 30.

The indictment, having been returned loss than three years from November 30, 1919, covered a period of time during which it was not a violation of law to possess a still, etc. This necessitated an averment as to time, in the absence of which the second count was fatally defective. Laminack et al. v. State (Ala. App. 7 Div. 774) 92 South. 505; 1 McReynolds v. State (Ala. App.) 89 South. 825; 2 Clark v. State, ante, p. 217, 90 South. 16; Isbell v. State, ante, p. 223, 90 South. 55.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 400.

2

Ante, p. 173.

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

Webb v. State, 93 So. 215, 18 Ala. App. 477, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 158 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

93 So. 215 (Webb v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cox v. State
462 So. 2d 1047 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1985)