Hillman v. State

The defendant was convicted of having unstamped liquor in his possession. To the overruling of his objection to the accusation and of his motion for new trial he excepted.

The first objection to the accusation was that it was not signed by the solicitor, but instead had the solicitor’s name printed thereon. There is no merit in this contention. It appears from the record that the affidavit upon which the accusation was based was in part as follows: “Personally comes L. J. Norris who on oath says that to the best of his knowledge and belief Charlie Hill-man did on the 14th day of June, 1941…