Grace v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from Anniston City Court. Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Coleman, Jr. William Grace was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. The part of the oral charge excepted to is as follows: “It wouldn’t make any difference whether it was his whisky, or whether he got it from somebody else. If he furnished it, it wouldn’t make any difference about the money consideration.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Anniston City Court. Heard before Hon. Thomas W. Coleman, Jr. William Grace was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. The part of the oral charge excepted to is as follows: “It wouldn’t make any difference whether it was his whisky, or whether he got it from somebody else. If he furnished it, it wouldn’t make any difference about the money consideration. If Grace got the whisky from somebody else for them, and put it up on the shelf for them, that would he a violation of law, just as much as if he owned the whisky himself. In other words, the prohibition law…
1Opinion of the CourtPelham, J.
On the trial of the defendant for a violation of the prohibition laws, defendant reserved an exception to that part of the court’s oral charge instructing the jury that giving away whisky was a violation of the law. Under the terms of the prohibition laws, there can be no doubt of the correctness of the court’s charge.—Acts 1909, p. 9, § 8. The giving away, or sale, shown by the evidence in this case brings it strictly within the letter and spirit of the prohibited acts intended to be prevented, and the facts utterly repudiate the idea that the case falls within the exception applying to…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Martin v. WattsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Adkins v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
- Preist v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
- Martin v. WattsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Freeman v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.