Wix v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wix v. State

108 So. 616, 21 Ala. App. 279, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 70

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1926

Docket6 Div. 665.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 108 So. 616 (Wix 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

Wix v. State, 108 So. 616, 21 Ala. App. 279, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 70 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws by distilling prohibited liquors, or having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for that purpose.

A statement of the evidence would not be helpful. Suffice it to say we have carefully examined same and are of the opinion that it was ample to support the verdict returned.

There was no error in refusing to give the general affirmative charge as to count 2 of the indictment because of any alleged defect therein. Coker v. State, 207 Ala. 656, 93 So. 383.

The few exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony have each been examined, and in each instance we find the ruling upon which same is based to have been without prejudicial error.

The written charges refused to defendant have each been scrutinized, and we find each of them to be either elliptical, confused, misleading, unintelligible, incorrect, abstract, or fully covered by the painstaking oral charge of the court, in connection with the charges given at appellant’s request.

Finding nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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