Bridgeforth v. State

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BRICKEN, J. SAMFORD, J.
• Citation: Bridgeforth v. State, 16 Ala.App. 239, 77 So. 77 (Ala. App. 1911)
• Decision Date: 30 June 1911
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 523
• Parties: BRIDGEFORTH v. STATE.

77 So. 77

16 Ala.App. 239

BRIDGEFORTH v. STATE.

8 Div. 523

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 30, 1911

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1917

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert Judge.

Alice Bridgeforth was convicted of violating the prohibition law and appeals. Affirmed.

H.V Cashin, of Decatur, for appellant.

W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and P.W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

After a careful consideration of this case, I have reached the conclusion that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant as requested in writing. But the other members of the court do not concur in this conclusion, their views being stated by SAMFORD, J., and in accordance therewith the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. My views are as follows:

The defendant was convicted for the offense of violating the prohibition law. A careful examination of the entire case fails to disclose any evidence, the tendency of which connects the defendant with either of the offenses charged in the affidavit. There was no evidence offered on the trial, nor was there any attempt to show that the defendant sold, offered for sale, or otherwise disposed of prohibited liquors. The evidence of the state consisted solely in the testimony of the officers who found some whisky buried in a barn in the city of Decatur. The barn was in the same neighborhood where the defendant lived and conducted her restaurant, but there was no testimony that in any manner connected the defendant with either the control or possession of this whisky, nor the control or possession of the premises upon which it was found.

The measure of proof in this case, as in all criminal cases, is that the evidence must satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of one of the offenses comprehended in the affidavit. There was no such evidence in the instant case, and nothing in the case upon which a verdict of guilty could be predicated.

Opinion of the Court.

SAMFORD J.

The defendant was charged with a violation of the prohibition law, was tried, convicted, and from the judgment of conviction she appeals.

On the trial, J.V. Mays, a witness for the state, testified as follows: That some time last January he made a raid on the premises of defendant on Bank street, in Decatur, Ala., and found 12 quart bottles of whisky, in the barn at the back of her restaurant, buried in the ground in the barn; that it was the barn on her premises, right back of where she lived and ran a restaurant; that the barn was occupied by her; that she had a horse and buggy in the barn, and it was in this barn that he found the whisky; that the north side of the barn was separated from the south side by a hog wire fence; that there was a hole in this wire partition fence; and that witness went through this hole into the south side of the barn, and it was on the south side of the barn that he found the whisky. J.A. Forman, another witness for the state, testified that he was the sheriff of ...