Abel v. State

Decision Date06 April 1926
Docket Number8 Div. 399
Citation21 Ala.App. 366,108 So. 268
PartiesABEL v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied April 20, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; C.P. Almon, Judge.

Frank Abel was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Stell &amp Quillin and Hamilton & Thomas, all of Russellville, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

This appeal is from a judgment of conviction for the offense of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous or malt liquor, a part of which was alcohol; also for the possession of a still to be used for such purpose.

The principal question presented upon this appeal is, Was there sufficient evidence adduced upon the trial of this case to submit the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant to the jury. The insistence of the defendant is that, as a matter of law, the court should have directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. On the other hand, the state insists that the material facts, as shown by the evidence, were in conflict, and that as a consequence the court was without authority to direct the verdict. This, as stated, is the important question. Other insistences are urged, but we regard them as being untenable.

The evidence in this case has been carefully considered, and we are of the opinion the court properly submitted the case to the jury for its consideration and determination. From this conflicting evidence we do not think the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge.

The evidence is without dispute that this appellant was present with two others, at the still in question, on the occasion of the visit to the still by the arresting officers. His mere presence there upon that occasion, without more, would not be sufficient upon which to predicate a verdict of guilt as to either of the two offenses charged in the indictment. We are of the opinion, however, that the following facts testified to by the state witnesses tended sufficiently to connect the defendant with the still and its operation to make a question for the jury. In substance, the state's witnesses testified: That on June 21st, at about 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning, they found a complete still of about 40 gallons capacity, all set up with fire under it, with the cap on it, and with the flakestand and worm attached, and in full operation with whisky running out of the worm, and that there was five and a half gallons of whisky there, and that it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Clark v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 3 de fevereiro de 1953
    ...general affirmative charge. Smith v. State, 21 Ala.App. 460, 109 So. 294; Plyler v. State, 21 Ala.App. 320, 108 So. 83; Abel v. State, 21 Ala.App. 366, 108 So. 268; Love v. State, 22 Ala.App. 392, 117 So. All that was said and done by the parties present at the time and at the place in ques......
  • Alabama City v. Allen
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 6 de abril de 1926
    ... ... anywhere in the city ... Count 2 ... of the complaint to which a demurrer was sustained undertook ... to state a violation of the second provision above set out; ... that is, driving at a greater rate of speed than 18 miles per ... hour at, across, or on any ... ...
  • First Nat. Bank v. Howard
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 20 de abril de 1926

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT