Bush v. State, 269
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | [12 Ala.App. 262] BROWN, J. |
| Citation | 12 Ala.App. 260,67 So. 847 |
| Parties | BUSH v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 269 |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1915 |
67 So. 847
12 Ala.App. 260
BUSH
v.
STATE.
No. 269
Court of Appeals of Alabama
January 21, 1915
Appeal from Shelby County Court; E.S. Lyman, Judge.
Tom Bush was convicted of violating the prohibitions law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Riddle & Ellis and Acuff & Pitts, all of Columbiana, for appellant.
W.L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
[12 Ala.App. 262] BROWN, J.
The original affidavit on which the prosecution was commenced was in the form prescribed by the statute (Gen.Acts, [67 So. 848.] Sp.Sess.1909, p. 90, § 29 1/2, charging in the alternative that the defendant "did sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, or otherwise dispose of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, contrary to law," etc. This charge was broad enough to cover the offense denounced by section 24 of the act, making it unlawful for one person to ship, transport, or deliver for another "prohibited liquors" as defined in this statute, when received at one point in this state to be shipped, transported, or delivered to another point in this state. The terms "otherwise disposed of," when used in the connection set forth in the affidavit, the act provides "shall include and be deemed to include barter, exchange, giving away, furnishing, or any manner of disposition by which said liquors and beverages may pass unlawfully from one to another." Gen.Acts Sp.Sess.1909, p. 91, § 31.
The legal effect of the amendment was merely to add another count, making the charge more specific by averring, [12 Ala.App. 263] in the language of the statute, that the defendant "transported or delivered for another prohibited liquors or beverages, received at one point in this state to be shipped or transported to or delivered to another person," etc. The court in allowing this amendment impinged no right of the defendant. Campbell v. State, 150 Ala. 70, 43 So. 743; Brannon v. State, 67 So. 634.
The term "prohibited liquors or beverages" is defined by the Legislature as including "all liquors, liquids and beverages prohibited by the law of the state to be manufactured, sold or otherwise disposed of, or any device or substitute for any of them, and shall also be so understood in any warrant, process, affidavit, complaint," etc. Acts supra, § 31. The legal import of the averments made in the second count of the complaint is that the defendant transported or delivered for another liquors or beverages in violation of the statute, and imposed upon the state the burden of proving the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lacy v. State, 157
...518; Traylor v. State, 100 Ala. 142, 14 So. 634; Jordan v. State, 5 Ala.App. 229, 59 So. 710; Brannon v. State, 67 So. 1007; Bush v. State, 67 So. 847. There is no vitiating uncertainty introduced into count 4 by the averment that the property embezzled or converted by the defendant was "of......
-
Barefield v. State, 4 Div. 411
...any manner of disposition by which 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 Supreme Court 70 So. 1012. In such cases, it is permissible for the prosecution to......
-
Howard v. State, 6 Div. 79
...subject to the demurrers. Arrington v. State, 69 So. 385, affirmed 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, 69 So. 384. The fourth count follows the language of section 12 of the Bonner Anti-Shipping ......
-
Bridgeforth v. State, 8 Div. 380
...Spec.Sess. p. 91, § 31; Arrington v. State, 13 Ala.App. 359, 69 So. 385, affirmed by the Supreme Court, 70 So. 1012; Bush v. State, 12 Ala.App. 260, 67 So. 847; Burt v. State, 72 So. 266. That the Legislature has the power to prescribe the form of indictment and define the scope of such ind......
-
Lacy v. State, 157
...518; Traylor v. State, 100 Ala. 142, 14 So. 634; Jordan v. State, 5 Ala.App. 229, 59 So. 710; Brannon v. State, 67 So. 1007; Bush v. State, 67 So. 847. There is no vitiating uncertainty introduced into count 4 by the averment that the property embezzled or converted by the defendant was "of......
-
Barefield v. State, 4 Div. 411
...any manner of disposition by which 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 Supreme Court 70 So. 1012. In such cases, it is permissible for the prosecution to......
-
Howard v. State, 6 Div. 79
...subject to the demurrers. Arrington v. State, 69 So. 385, affirmed 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, 69 So. 384. The fourth count follows the language of section 12 of the Bonner Anti-Shipping ......
-
Bridgeforth v. State, 8 Div. 380
...Spec.Sess. p. 91, § 31; Arrington v. State, 13 Ala.App. 359, 69 So. 385, affirmed by the Supreme Court, 70 So. 1012; Bush v. State, 12 Ala.App. 260, 67 So. 847; Burt v. State, 72 So. 266. That the Legislature has the power to prescribe the form of indictment and define the scope of such ind......