Love v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBricken, P. J.
The motion for a new trial is not presented for the consideration of this court as no exception appears to have been reserved to the action of the court in overruling the motion. Such exception must be shown by the bill of exceptions. A statement in the judgment only, to that effect will not suffice. Martin v. State, 216 Ala. 160, 113 So. 602; Ex parte Grace, 213 Ala. 550, 105 So. 707.
The defendant was convicted under count 1 of the indictment which charged that he did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic, spirituous, malted, or mixed liquors, a part of which was alcohol, contrary to law.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pellum v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Koch v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1896
- Sherrill v. Merchants & Mechanics T. & S. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1915
- Martin v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1926
- Lee v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Grimes v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1931
- Bethune v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1934
- Clark v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- Rutherford v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1939