Legal Opinion

Gamble v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided December 19, 1922No. 6 Div. 50PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSamford, J.

The . indictment was in two counts. The first charged the defendant with manufacturing whisky, and the second with possessing a still, in violation of Acts 1919, p. 1086. There was a verdict of guilty under count 2.

Section 1 of the act, supra, creates the crime and presupposes a complete still, apparatus, appliance, or device or substitute therefor to be used, etc. In order for the state to be entitled to a conviction, this fact must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Such still, apparatus, etc., need not -be assembled,- if the parts reasonably necessary to its pse for the purpose of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Maisel v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. Atwood v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  3. Lindsey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
  4. Hutchinson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. BorregoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Pate v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
  3. Berry v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
  4. Bradley v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1944
  5. McNeel v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1932

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API