Wetzell v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson. Ed Wetzell was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals. The evidence was not sufficient to bring the offense within the statute of limitations, and the court improperly denied the defendant the affirmative charge. — Gore v. The State, 58 Ala. 391. The charges were not numbered. — Mav^tin v. The State, 1 Ala.
Read the full summary
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson. Ed Wetzell was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he appeals. The evidence was not sufficient to bring the offense within the statute of limitations, and the court improperly denied the defendant the affirmative charge. — Gore v. The State, 58 Ala. 391. The charges were not numbered. — Mav^tin v. The State, 1 Ala. App. 217; Gibson v. The State, 89 Ala. 122. There was sufficient evidence to convict, and the affirmative charge was properly denied.
1Opinion of the CourtPelham, J.
The defendant was tried and convicted for a violator of the prohibition law. The State introduced but one witness who testified to the time of the commission of the offense, and this witness testified that he did not remember the time when he bought the prohibited liquor, but .that “it was in the winter- and was before Christmas.” The evidence is not sufficient *173to show that the offense was committed within the period of the statute of limitations before the finding of the indictment. The defendant asked the general affirmative charge, and insists here that its refusal by the court below is…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Yancey v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1911