Smith v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Selling Liquor Without License. Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. B. M. Miller. N. S. Smith was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license as a retailer, and he appeals. The first count in the indictment is in the following language: “The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Nathaniel S. Smith, without a license as a retailer, did sell spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors.”
Read the full summary
Selling Liquor Without License. Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court. Heard before Hon. B. M. Miller. N. S. Smith was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license as a retailer, and he appeals. The first count in the indictment is in the following language: “The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Nathaniel S. Smith, without a license as a retailer, did sell spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors.” The 1st count in the indictment is bad. — Secs. 5076-7, Code 1896; Williams v. The State, 91 Ala. 14; Tarlcins v. The State, 108 Ala. 17; Elam v.…
1Opinion of the CourtAnderson, J.
An indictment, whether for retailing liqnor without a license, or for the violation of any special or local laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, should aver that the sale was “contrary to law.” Section 5077 of the Criminal Code of 1896; Tarkins v. State, 108 Ala. 17, 19 South. 24;Williams v. State, 91 Ala. 14, 8 South. 668; Sills v. State, 76 Ala. 92. The fact that form 79, as set out in the Code of 1896, suggests two different forms, does not dispense with the necessity for the material averment that the sale was “contrary to law.” The trial court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Sills v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Tarkins v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895