Harrison v. State
| Decision Date | 15 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | 377 |
| Citation | 13 Ala.App. 354,69 So. 383 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Bud Harrison was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J.A Carnley, of Elba, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and W.H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appeal in this case is on the record without a bill of exceptions. The transcript shows an indictment containing two counts for violations of the prohibition laws. The first count is confessedly good, and charges the defendant in the generally used form with having sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors contrary to law. The second count is drawn under section 24 of the Fuller Bill (Acts Sp.Sess.1909 p. 86), and specifically avers that the defendant did convey or transport spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors over or along a public highway for another, but does not aver the act to have been contrary to law. Demurrers were interposed to the second count of the indictment, that were overruled by the court, taking the point, among others that the second count was bad in failing to aver the act complained of to have been unlawful, or, in other words, that the prohibited liquors were conveyed or transported contrary to law.
The charge embraced in the first count of the indictment is broad enough to cover the offense denounced by section 24 of the act referred to, under which the second count was drafted. The legal effect of the count is but to make a more specific charge of the violation of the prohibition laws covered by the first count, by averring a violation of section 24 in the language of the statute. Bush v. State, 67 So. 847.
The recitals of the judgment entry show that the defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coker v. State
...Coleman (Ala.) 5 Port. 32; Taylor v. State, 100 Ala. 68, 14 So. 875; Rule 45, Supreme Court, 175 Ala. xxi, 61 South. ix; Harrison v. State, 13 Ala. App. 354, 69 So. 383. is made that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give the general affirmative charge requested by t......
-
Howard v. State
... ... only. The first count, as has been repeatedly ruled, is in ... the form prescribed by the statute and was not 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 Law, supra, and was likewise sufficient ... Kirk v. State, 70 So. 990; authorities supra ... It may ... be conceded that a passenger with ... ...
-
Burt v. State
...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 State, 69 So. 385; Ex parte Arrington, 70 So. 1012. The charges requested by the defendant asserting, in substance, that th......
-
Arrington v. State
...to, making it unlawful for any person to transport or deliver for another prohibited liquors. Bush v. State, 67 So. 847; Bud Harrison v. State, 69 So. 383; v. State, 69 So. 384. In Whaley v. State, supra, construing section 24 of the Acts of the Legislature, Sp.Sess.1909, p. 86, we said: "I......