Whigham v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Whigham v. State

109 So. 281, 21 Ala. App. 454, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 208

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket1 Div. 677.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 109 So. 281 (Whigham 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

Whigham v. State, 109 So. 281, 21 Ala. App. 454, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 208 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Section 4657 of the Code of 1923 provides that the unexplained possession of any part or parts of any still, or any device or substitute therefor, commonly, ot generally used for, or that is suitable to be used in, the manufacture of prohibited liquors and beverages, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of the preceding section *455 (4656). The evidence for the state tended toi prove that the “lard can” and cap found in' defendant’s possession were commonly used for the purposes denounced by the statute. If the jury believed the state’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they could from the possession of the lard can and cap found, together with the possession of two one-half barrels of mash, ready for distillation, legally draw the inference that defendant was in possession of the entire and complete still. Berry v. State, 20 Ala. App. 102, 100 So. 922; Harvey v. State, 20 Ala. App. 284, 101 So. 512.

We are impressed with the persuasive explanation of defendant’s testimony relative to the possession, bnt the question of guilt under the indictment was one of fact for the jury, and hot for this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Section 4657 of the Code of 1923 provides that the unexplained possession of any part or parts of any still, or any device or substitute therefor, commonly, ot generally used for, or that is suitable to be used in, the manufacture of prohibited liquors and beverages, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of the preceding section *455 (4656). The evidence for the state tended toi prove that the “lard can” and cap found in' defendant’s possession were commonly used for the purposes denounced by the statute. If the jury believed the state’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they could from the possession of the lard can and cap found, together with the possession of two one-half barrels of mash, ready for distillation, legally draw the inference that defendant was in possession of the entire and complete still. Berry v. State, 20 Ala. App. 102, 100 So. 922; Harvey v. State, 20 Ala. App. 284, 101 So. 512.

We are impressed with the persuasive explanation of defendant’s testimony relative to the possession, bnt the question of guilt under the indictment was one of fact for the jury, and hot for this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 281, 21 Ala. App. 454, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whigham-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack