Wilson v. City of Florence

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wilson v. City of Florence

175 So. 334, 27 Ala. App. 527, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 101

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 1937

Docket8 Div. 481.

StatusPublished

This text of 175 So. 334 (Wilson v. City of Florence) 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

Wilson v. City of Florence, 175 So. 334, 27 Ala. App. 527, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 101 (Ala. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The testimony in this case is overwhelming to the effect that the defendant took a small flask from his young son and immediately destroyed it, by breaking it over a rock. Assuming that the bottle contained whisky, which is not at all certain; its possession for the purpose of immediate destruction is not such possession as the law condemns. Weighing this testimony according to the rules of evidence, and considering the surrounding circumstances, we conclude that the evidence was overwhelming as against the verdict, and that it would be wrong and unjust to permit this judgment to stand.

The trial judge should have granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and his refusal to do so constitutes reversible error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. • ■

Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The testimony in this case is overwhelming to the effect that the defendant took a small flask from his young son and immediately destroyed it, by breaking it over a rock. Assuming that the bottle contained whisky, which is not at all certain; its possession for the purpose of immediate destruction is not such possession as the law condemns. Weighing this testimony according to the rules of evidence, and considering the surrounding circumstances, we conclude that the evidence was overwhelming as against the verdict, and that it would be wrong and unjust to permit this judgment to stand.

The trial judge should have granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and his refusal to do so constitutes reversible error.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. • ■

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 334, 27 Ala. App. 527, 1937 Ala. App. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-florence-alactapp-1937.