Wray v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Wray v. State

72 So. 556, 15 Ala. App. 81, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 110

DecidedAugust 1, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 72 So. 556 (Wray 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

Wray v. State, 72 So. 556, 15 Ala. App. 81, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 110 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J. —

The act approved February 8, 1915, makes it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to receive or accept for delivery of, or to possess more than a specified quantity of, intoxicating liquors at any one time, or within a specified period. —Acts 1915, p. 44; Southern Express Co. v. Whittle, 194 Ala. 406, 69 South. 652, L. R. A. 1916C, 278. The demurrers taking the point that such acts were not prohibited by law after the 30th of June, 1915, and up until the 23d day of September, 1915, were not well taken, and the rulings of the trial court thereon were correct. The act approved September 17, 1915, authorizing the shipments of liquor under the supervision of the sheriff or other law officer of the state, afforded the defendant no protection for possessing, transporting, or shipping such liquors. By the act, the state, in the exercise of its sovereign authority, directed such shipments under the direct supervision of its officers to prevent evasion of the law of the state. — Acts 1915, p. 632, 633, § 6; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. State, ex rel. Attorney General, 197 Ala. 389, 72 South. 555.

The rulings of the trial court were in accord with these views, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BROWN, J. —

The act approved February 8, 1915, makes it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to receive or accept for delivery of, or to possess more than a specified quantity of, intoxicating liquors at any one time, or within a specified period. —Acts 1915, p. 44; Southern Express Co. v. Whittle, 194 Ala. 406, 69 South. 652, L. R. A. 1916C, 278. The demurrers taking the point that such acts were not prohibited by law after the 30th of June, 1915, and up until the 23d day of September, 1915, were not well taken, and the rulings of the trial court thereon were correct. The act approved September 17, 1915, authorizing the shipments of liquor under the supervision of the sheriff or other law officer of the state, afforded the defendant no protection for possessing, transporting, or shipping such liquors. By the act, the state, in the exercise of its sovereign authority, directed such shipments under the direct supervision of its officers to prevent evasion of the law of the state. — Acts 1915, p. 632, 633, § 6; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. State, ex rel. Attorney General, 197 Ala. 389, 72 South. 555.

The rulings of the trial court were in accord with these views, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 556, 15 Ala. App. 81, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wray-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack