Legal Opinion

Casey v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided May 29, 1923No. 7 Div. 813PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

The first count of the indictment charged the defendant with distilling, and the second count with having in his possession a still to be used for manufacturing, prohibited liquors.

The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. It was proper to join the charges of distilling and possessing a still in the same indictment. Nichols v. State, 18 Ala. App. 184, 89 South. 847.

There was ample evidence to justify the conviction of the defendant, and the trial court properly refused charges 1 and 2, the general affirmative charges for the defendant.

There is no merit in the exception reserved…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hardeman v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
  2. Nichols v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1921

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sexton v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Couric v. City of EufaulaAlabama Court of Appeals · 1931
  3. Black v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1957
  4. Davidson v. NygaardNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Sexton v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API