Hancock v. State

• Decision Date: 06 April 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 952
• Citation: 71 So. 973,14 Ala.App. 91
• Parties: HANCOCK v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

71 So. 973

14 Ala.App. 91

HANCOCK v. STATE.

6 Div. 952

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 6, 1916

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1916

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.

Ben Hancock was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The following are the counts referred to in the opinion:

(1) Before me, T.L. Sowell, judge of the law and equity court of Walker county, in and for said county, personally appeared J.D. Estes, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he has probable cause for believing and does believe that within 12 months before the making of this affidavit, Ben Hancock whose name is to the affiant unknown otherwise, sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous vinous, or malt liquors contrary to law.

(7) Affiant deposes and says that he has probable cause for believing, and does believe, that within 12 months before the making of this affidavit Ben Hancock transported over or along a public street or public highway spirituous liquors for another, whose name to affiant is unknown, said liquor so transported were transported from Jasper to South Lowell both being in Walker county, Ala.

(8) Affiant further says that he has probable cause for believing and does believe that within 12 months before the making of this affidavit, and since January 27, 1915, Ben Hancock did receive or accept for delivery, or possessed or had in his possession at one time, more than one-half gallon of spirituous liquors, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama.

Leith &amp Gunn, of Jasper, for appellant.

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

PELHAM P.J.

The only questions raised by the record relate to the action of the court in overruling defendant's demurrer to each of the eight counts of the complaint upon which defendant was tried for a violation of the prohibition law.

If there was error in overruling the demurrer as to the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth counts, it was error without injury, for it appears from the record that the court subsequently gave the defendant the affirmative charge as to each of these counts. There remain to be considered, therefore, only the first, seventh, and eighth counts.

The first count followed the form provided by the statute for charging a violation of the prohibition law, and the demurrer to it was properly overruled. General Acts 1915, p. 30 paragraph 29 1/2; Glover v....