Gamble v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
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
- Maisel v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1919
- Atwood v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Lindsey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1922
- Hutchinson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. BorregoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Pate v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
- Berry v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
- Bradley v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1944
- McNeel v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.