Harvell v. State ex rel. Sanford, 7 Div. 492
| Decision Date | 17 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 492 |
| Parties | HARVELL v. STATE ex rel. SANFORD. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R.B. Carr, Judge.
Bill to abate a liquor nuisance by the State of Alabama, on the relation of James B. Sanford, as circuit solicitor for Calhoun county, against J.H. Harvell. From a decree, after hearing, denying motion to dissolve temporary injunction overruling demurrer to the bill, and ordering perpetual injunction and padlocking of premises, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
Jas. L Carter, of Anniston, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Wm. H. Loeb, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed under section 4619 of the Code to abate a liquor nuisance. It charges:
"Said respondent, within six months last past, has maintained, or aided in maintaining, and is now maintaining, or aiding in maintaining, a liquor nuisance, as defined by section 4619 of the Code of Alabama, in that said respondent is engaged in, and has been engaged in, keeping, storing, selling, bartering, or otherwise unlawfully disposing of, prohibited liquors or beverages on certain premises in Calhoun County, Alabama."
We cannot agree to the contention of counsel for appellant that section 4619 of the Code of 1923 was repealed by section 61, page 85, Gen. Acts Extra Session 1936-37. Whether said act repeals so much of the law as makes the bare possession of prohibited liquors in dry counties unlawful, we are not called upon to decide, for conceding that it does not, such bare possession does not in and of itself amount to a nuisance as defined by section 4619. And the present bill of complaint proceeds upon the theory that the respondent was disposing of, or keeping, or storing prohibited liquor for the purpose of unlawfully disposing of same.
The evidence was ore tenus, or partly so, and, when such is the case, the conclusion of the trial court is like unto the verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed by this court unless contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and this rule, applies to cases in equity as well as law. A careful consideration of the evidence warranted a reasonable inference, as found by the trial court, that the respondent was in the possession of prohibited liquors for the purpose of unlawfully disposing of same.
The record discloses no reversible error and the decree of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aiken v. Barnes
... ... 657 AIKEN et al. v. BARNES et al. 1 Div. 230.Supreme Court of AlabamaApril 25, 1946 ... disturbed, unless palpably wrong. Harvell v. State ex ... rel. Sanford, 235 Ala. 329, 179 ... ...
-
Thompson v. State
...weight of the evidence, and this rule applies to cases where alleged liquor nuisances are sought to be abated. Harvell v. State ex rel. Sanford, 235 Ala. 329, 179 So. 233. The decree of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur. On Reheari......
-
Smith v. State ex rel. Sullinger
...judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless the finding is clearly against the great weight of the evidence. Harvell v. State ex rel. Sanford, 235 Ala. 329, 179 So. 233. We are unable to say that the finding of the trial judge in this case is contrary to the great weight of the The premise......
-
Taylor v. State ex rel. Adams
...are sought to be abated. Thompson v. State, 267 Ala. 22, 99 So.2d 198; Espey v. State, 268 Ala. 109, 105 So.2d 93; Harvell v. State, 235 Ala. 329, 179 So. 233. The other point raised by the assignments of error is that even though it be held that the evidence was sufficient to support the i......