Wilson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

122 So. 617, 23 Ala. App. 131, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 126

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 1929

Docket8 Div. 695.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 122 So. 617 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 122 So. 617, 23 Ala. App. 131, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 126 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted, generally, on a trial under an indictment in two counts — the first charging him with the offense of unlawfully distilling alcoholic, etc., liquors, and the second with the offense of having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing alcoholic, etc., liquors contrary to law.

Exception was reserved to that part of the trial court’s oral charge which was as follows : “Now these words ‘aid and abet5 as I have used them are defined in law as follows: The words ‘aid and abet5 comprehend all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary.”

In a very skillfully composed brief filed on this appeal, appellant’s able counsel carry us through the dictionaries of Rapalje & Lawrence, Bouvier, Webster, and maybe some others, in an effort to show, by a microscopical examination of the etymology of the words “aid and abet” that the portion of the oral charge excepted to was erroneous. But we are not persuaded. So far as we can see, and we so hold, the said portion of said charge stated the law correctly. See Raiford v. State, 59 Ala. 106. Also, Lowery v. State 22 Ala. App. 262, 114 So. 631.

*132 No other question worthy of mention is apparent. There being no prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted, generally, on a trial under an indictment in two counts — the first charging him with the offense of unlawfully distilling alcoholic, etc., liquors, and the second with the offense of having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing alcoholic, etc., liquors contrary to law.

Exception was reserved to that part of the trial court’s oral charge which was as follows : “Now these words ‘aid and abet5 as I have used them are defined in law as follows: The words ‘aid and abet5 comprehend all assistance rendered by words, acts, encouragement, support, or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary.”

In a very skillfully composed brief filed on this appeal, appellant’s able counsel carry us through the dictionaries of Rapalje & Lawrence, Bouvier, Webster, and maybe some others, in an effort to show, by a microscopical examination of the etymology of the words “aid and abet” that the portion of the oral charge excepted to was erroneous. But we are not persuaded. So far as we can see, and we so hold, the said portion of said charge stated the law correctly. See Raiford v. State, 59 Ala. 106. Also, Lowery v. State 22 Ala. App. 262, 114 So. 631.

*132 No other question worthy of mention is apparent. There being no prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 617, 23 Ala. App. 131, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack