Haynes v. State
Decision Date | 22 July 1924 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 244. |
Citation | 101 So. 167,20 Ala.App. 160 |
Parties | HAYNES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; Jas. E. Horton, Jr. Judge.
Ed Haynes was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Brown & Griffith, of Cullman, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and O. B. Cornelius, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The appellant was indicted in two counts; the first charging that he manufactured prohibited liquors, and the second that he had in his possession a still to be used for the purpose of manufacturing such liquors.
The evidence was circumstantial. A still was found buried in appellant's pasture, in a hole 2 1/2 feet deep and about 75 yards from his residence. There were 11 barrels of beer or slop near there. The state's evidence tended to show that this still had been buried for two months or longer. Another still with about a half gallon of malt or slop in it and smoked on the outside, was found in the edge of the woods about 150 yards in front of the appellant's house. There was no evidence that the latter still was on the land of the appellant, or on land under his control. There were tracks leading from appellant's house to the woods in the direction of the still. There were two fresh plowed furrows in appellant's field near his house, with slop in them. There was beer or slop on the cellar floor under the house, and an opening in the stove flue which was built from the ground up. The appellant denied knowledge of the 11 barrels of beer, denied ownership or control of the stills, admitted pouring out 2 barrels of beer in the furrows, and claimed that they were in the smoke-house when he moved on the place about a week before the sheriff and officers searched the premises. A man named Wilson moved out of the house immediately before appellant moved in. No liquor was found in appellant's possession or about his house.
Appellant was convicted for manufacturing prohibited liquors as charged in the first count of the indictment, and was by this verdict of the jury acquitted of having in his possession a still. There was no evidence tending to connect the appellant with the manufacture of liquors; no liquors were shown to have been made. Upon the facts in the case a judgment of conviction for possessing a still would be sustained. But the jury acquitted the appellant of this charge, and there...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nugent v. State
... ... 325 ... Objection ... is taken to a question asked by the solicitor, to wit: ... "Did the still have the appearance of having been fired ... before that?" To which the witness answered, "Yes ... Sir." To sustain this objection and exception we are ... cited to the case of Haynes v. State, 20 Ala.App ... 160, 101 So. 167, 168, in which Foster, Judge, speaking for ... this court, said: "A witness may not testify that a ... still showed it had been recently used, this being a ... conclusion." It will be observed that the holding in the ... Haynes Case, supra, referred ... ...
-
Tyre v. State
...examination revealed that witness had no independent knowledge, and that his testimony was based purely upon hearsay. Haynes v. State (Ala.App.) 101 So. 1167; Hill v. State (Ala.App.) 101 So. We have considered all the matters that we think likely to arise upon another trial of the case. Fo......