Burt v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 384 |
| Parties | BURT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert Judge.
Son Burt was convicted of a violation of the liquor laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.H. Long, Jr., of Decatur, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and J.P. Mudd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was tried on an affidavit and warrant in the usual form charging him with selling, keeping for sale, or otherwise disposing of prohibited liquors contrary to law. The affidavit is in the form prescribed by law. Acts 1909, p 90. § 29 1/2; Acts 1915, p. 30, § 29 1/2.
The evidence of the state's witness afforded an inference that the defendant was guilty of the offense of transporting or delivering for another prohibited liquors, as denounced and made a violation of law under the provisions of section 24 of the act referred to, and the affidavit is broad enough to charge the offense denounced by that section. Bush v. State, 67 So. 847; Harrison v. State, 69 So. 383; Arrington v. State, 69 So. 385; Ex parte Arrington, 70 So. 1012. The charges requested by the defendant asserting, in substance, that the defendant in the case on trial, charged with selling, keeping for sale, or otherwise disposing of liquor contrary to law, could not be convicted of unlawfully transporting prohibited liquors, were properly refused, for the reason that such an offense was comprehended within the charge preferred, and upon which the defendant was being tried. Authorities supra. The charges given at the request of the defendant fully cover all correct propositions of law asserted in other special charges refused to the defendant.
The state's evidence in substance showed that some unknown person left a train in the nighttime upon its arrival at New Decatur and walked across the railroad tracks and placed a package, or packages, in a conveyance driven by the defendant, in which the defendant was at the time seated. An officer who was present and saw this occurrence called to the unknown person, whereupon he ran away and escaped, leaving the packages in the vehicle in charge of and driven by the defendant. The packages, when opened, were found to contain prohibited liquors. It was further shown by the state's evidence that the state's witness had been watching at the same place for some time prior to the arrival of the train in all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Fulton
...to quote. Other illustrations will be found in Van Winkle v. State, 4 Boyce (Del.) 578, 91 Atl. 395, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 104; Burt v. State, 14 Ala. App. 125, 72 South. 266; State v. Wignall, 150 Iowa, 650, 128 N. W. 935, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 507; Maynes v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 487, 119 Pac. 644; ......
-
Bridgeforth v. State
...The charge in the affidavit covers the charge of unlawfully transporting prohibited liquors for another. Arrington v. State, supra; Burt v. State, supra. important question presented arises from the refusal of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant; that disposed of, the difficul......
-
Thompson v. State
... ... 60; Sales v. State, 31 Ala.App. 19, 12 So.2d 101 ... Our ... considered conclusion is that the defendant was not entitled ... to the general affirmative charge. The following authorities ... lend support to our view. Crawley v. State, supra; Robertson ... v. State, supra; Burt v. State, 14 Ala.App. 125, 72 ... So. 266; May v. State, 22 Ala.App. 239, 114 So. 423; ... Cummings et al. v. State, 26 Ala.App. 131, 154 So ... 609; Walker v. State, 19 Ala.App. 20, 95 So. 205; ... Dotson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 216, 135 So. 159; ... Stearns v. State, 4 Ala.App. 154, 58 So ... ...
- Burt v. State