Foshee v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1913 |
| Citation | 9 Ala.App. 76,63 So. 753 |
| Parties | FOSHEE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.
Joe Foshee was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law and he appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas A. Curry, of Clanton, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
One who was the porter of a train on which there was evidence tending to prove that the defendant was a passenger testified that at the request of a passenger on the train, who was a stranger to him, he set off two suit cases at Felacto, a station near Clanton. When this witness saw the defendant during the trial he stated that he did not know whether he was the person who had him to put off the two suit cases. There was other evidence tending to prove that on the day before this occurred the defendant engaged a liveryman in Clanton to meet that train at Felacto with a horse and buggy and get a couple of grips that would be on the train and take them to the defendant's home in Clanton; that the person so employed went to Felacto as directed, got the two suit cases which were put off the train, and had them in his buggy when they were taken in charge by a deputy sheriff, and found to be filled with bottles of whisky and gin. The two suit cases and their contents were exhibited to the jury. There was no direct evidence that the defendant was ever in possession of these articles, and it is insisted in his behalf that there was no evidence of the corpus delicti, in that there was no evidence that the suit cases were ever in the possession of any one having a knowledge of their contents, accompanied with an unlawful purpose. We cannot concur in this view. The set of circumstances which there was evidence tending to prove was such as to furnish support for an inference that the defendant was the person who had the suit cases on the train and who got the porter to put them off at the time and place at which he had engaged another to take charge of such articles for him.
As above stated, the bill of exceptions shows that the bottles containing whisky and gin which filled the two suit cases were exhibited to the jury. The contents of the suit cases are not further described. The contrary not appearing, it may be presumed, in support of the ruling of the trial court that this demonstrative evidence as to the size of the suit cases...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. State
...This evidence was sufficient to justify the submission of the case to the jury (Roe v. City of Tuscaloosa, 67 So. 845; Foshee v. State, 9 Ala.App. 76, 63 So. 753), and sufficient to justify the admission of the defendant's confession, as shown by one of the state's witnesses, that the liquo......
-
Hodge v. State
...not, perhaps, conclusive that he received the packages, was yet a circumstance tending to show that he did. Watson v. State, supra; Foshee v. State, supra. agent on cross-examination further testified that these receipts introduced in evidence were signed to copies of the waybills; the orig......
-
Ogden v. State
... ... 404, 60 So. 468. In this state of the ... record, the presumption must be indulged in favor of the ... rulings of the trial court that the bundles of whisky ... contained sufficient quantity to afford the inference that ... the liquors were kept for an unlawful purpose. Foshee v ... State, 9 Ala.App. 76, 78, 63 So. 753 ... We find ... no error in the record ... ...
- Howard v. State