Arrington v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 386 |
| Citation | 13 Ala.App. 359,69 So. 385 |
| Parties | ARRINGTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1915
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
James Arrington was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
H.L Martin, of Ozark, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment is in the form prescribed by the statute (Acts Sp.Sess.1909, p. 90, § 29 1/2), and charges that the defendant "sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors contrary to law," etc., and is broad enough to cover the offense denounced by section 24 of the act above referred to making it unlawful for any person to transport or deliver for another prohibited liquors. Bush v. State, 67 So 847; Bud Harrison v. State, 69 So. 383; Whaley v. State, 69 So. 384.
In Whaley v. State, supra, section 24 of the Acts of the Legislature, Sp.Sess.1909, p. 86, we said:
"It will be noted that this section defines four separate offenses: (1) That of accepting 'prohibited liquors' from another for shipment or delivery; (2) that of shipping 'prohibited liquors for another'; (3) that of delivering prohibited liquors to another (one of the constituent elements of the above-enumerated offenses is that the prohibited liquors must have been received at one point, place, or locality in this state to be shipped or transported to or delivered to another person, firm, or corporation at another place or locality in this state); and (4) that of conveying or transporting over or along any public street or highway such prohibited liquors for another."
The evidence adduced by the state shows without dispute that the agent of the Southern Express Company at Elba, Coffee county, delivered to the defendant 20 different shipments of liquor between January 14, 1914, and September 21, 1914, weighing in the aggregate 1,289 pounds, and containing about 107 gallons; that these liquors were shipped and billed to the defendant, and he received them from the agent of the Southern Express Company and receipted for each shipment. The defendant does not deny these facts, but testifies in his own behalf that several persons living in the community gave him money, to which he added some of his own, and that he ordered this liquor from Pensacola, Fla, and had it shipped to himself at Elba, Ala.; that he there received it and transported it from Elba, in Coffee county, to his home in the same county, and distributed it to each of the persons contributing to the fund, keeping a portion for his own use.
The legal title to the liquor when it was received from the express company was in the defendant. Pilgreen v State, 71 Ala. 368. The transportation and delivery of the liquor to the other persons who contributed to the fund used in its purchase operated a transfer of the title to the person to whom delivered, and was in the nature of a "sale." O'Brien v. State, 3 Ala.App. 175, 57 So. 1028; Coker V. State, 91 Ala. 92, 8 So. 874; 4 Words and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Treas v. Price
... ... COMMERCE ... Privilege ... tax on gasoline neither sold nor distributed in package in ... which it was shipped from sister state, but only after it had ... been transferred therefrom and in broken quantities, held not ... objectionable as burden on interstate commerce (Code ... Baird ... (Wash.), 222 P. 218; Commonwealth v. Gallo ... (1918), 70 Pa. S.Ct. 548; Commonwealth v. Opolka, 69 ... Pa. S.Ct. 230; Arrington v. State (Ala.), 69 So ... 385; Walters v. State, 127 Miss. 324, 90 So. 76; ... Horton v. State, 105 Miss. 333, 62 So. 360; ... Wiley v ... ...
-
Barefield v. State
...such prohibited liquors and beverages may pass unlawfully from one person to another. Bush v. State, 12 Ala.App. 260, 67 So. 847; Arrington v. State, 69 So. 385, affirmed by Court 70 So. 1012. In such cases, it is permissible for the prosecution to offer evidence of several distinct sales b......
-
Whitehead v. State
...Ala. 15, overruling Bryan's Case, 45 Ala. 86, declaring a different rule; Darrington v. State, 162 Ala. 60, 50 So. 396; Arrington v. State, 13 Ala. App. 359, 69 So. 385; parte Arrington, 195 Ala. 694, 70 So. 1012. The demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled. Resolving doubtful i......
-
Howard v. State
...The first count, as has been repeatedly ruled, is in the form prescribed by the statute and was not subject to the demurrers. Arrington v. State, 69 So. 385, by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Arrington, 70 So. 1012; Bush v. State, 67 So. 847; Harrison v. State, 69 So. 383; Whaley v. State, 6......