Williams v. State

169 So. 337, 27 Ala. App. 227, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 128
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 26 Ala. App. 531
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 19, 1936·No. 6 Div. 961.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge,

The indictment was in two counts, 0ne charging the manufacture of whisky, an¿ the other the unlawful possession of a still, etc. The verdict was general and referable to either count in the indictment. Haney v. State, 19 Ala.App. 79, 95 So. 57.

The evidence for the state was sufficient to justjfy a verdict of guilt, and, while the testimony of the defendants was to the contrary, the question was for the jury,

other exceptions baye been examined, and we find them all free from error/

. , , . rr , The judgment is affirmed. °

A rmed*

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

Williams v. State, 169 So. 337, 27 Ala. App. 227, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 128 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

169 So. 337 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haney v. State
95 So. 57 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)