Piercefield v. State

In this case, the appellant “was found guilty of having the unlawful possession of a still, device and property for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor, in violation of the laws of this state. §1, ch. 38, Acts 1923. He alleges that errors were committed by the lower court as follows: Overruling his motion to suppress evidence obtained by virtue of an illegal search warrant and overruling his motion for a new. trial.

The affidavit for a search warrant and the search warrant named the appellant and contained the following description of the place to be searched in Monroe county: “Sec. 4 and W…