Lindsey v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The indictment was in Code form, and sufficiently charged the offense. Code 1923, § 4556, Form 27.
The building charged to have been burglarized was in the possession of R. H. Cole and his brother, who was his partner in business. The possession of the property was properly laid in R. H. Cole, and is sufficient to support a verdict upon evidence disclosing the fact that the business was operated by Cole and his brother. Spradling v. State, 17 Ala. 440; Young v. State, 100 Ala. 126, 14 So. 872; Hale v. State, 122 Ala. 85,26 So. 236; Chiles v. State, 23 Ala. App. 532, 128 So. 468.
It is insisted…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hale v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- McGee v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
- Watson v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924
- Ex Parte WatsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
- Spradling v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Love v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1953
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- Dixon v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1958
- Thornton v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- Lindsey v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939