Maisel v. State
Decision Date | 14 January 1919 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 289 |
Citation | 17 Ala.App. 12,81 So. 348 |
Parties | MAISEL v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 8, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Norville R. Leigh, Jr. Judge.
Max Maisel was tried by the court without a jury for a violation of the prohibition law, was convicted, and from the judgment he appeals. Affirmed.
Inge & Kilborn, of Mobile, for appellant.
F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
There is but one question insisted upon by counsel for appellant and that is whether the facts justify the judgment of conviction. Questions of fact, where the evidence is taken ore tenus, are always the most difficult for appellate courts to deal with. The atmosphere of the trial, the personal contact with the parties and witnesses, their appearance, manner on the stand, the expression of the faces of witnesses during cross-examinations, hesitancy of answers to questions in efforts to evade--all these things are absent from the appellate court when it comes to consider the record, and hence the courts, in their effort to render correct judgments, have adopted the rule that, where the trial is had by the court without the intervention of a jury and the testimony is given ore tenus, the findings of the court on the facts will not be disturbed on appeal, unless plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala.App. 204, 72 So. 761; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 405, 72 So. 52; Finney v. Studebaker Co., 196 Ala. 422, 72 So. 54; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187, 72 So. 759; Patterson v. Milligan, 12 Ala.App. 338, 66 So. 914. And this notwithstanding Acts 1915, p. 939; Ross v. State, 15 Ala.App. 187, 72 So. 759; Ross v. State, 198 Ala. 701, 73 So. 1001. Any other rule would be unwise, and impracticable of application.
Section 4 of an act approved January 23, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 9) provides that the keeping of prohibited liquors in any building not used exclusively for a dwelling shall be prima facie evidence that such liquors are kept for sale, etc. These facts, when proven, become a presumption of law, which in the opinion in Roman, Trustee, v. Lentz, 177 Ala. 71, 58 So. 438, is differentiated from presumptions of facts, which last presumptions are overcome by positive, direct, and uncontradicted testimony to the contrary as in L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Marbury, 125 Ala. 254, 28 So. 438, 50 L.R.A. 620, and A.G.S.R.R. Co. v. Moody, 90 Ala. 46, 8 So. 57. Where the facts are proven establishing the legal presumption of guilt, the rebutting evidence does not nullify or destroy the presumption arising out of proven facts, which is itself an evidential fact for consideration in determining the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. State
...Ala.App. 629, 111 So. 188. In such a case a jury, weighing the whole evidence, may find the defendant guilty as charged. Maisel v. State, 17 Ala.App. 12, 81 So. 348.' We find no merit in appellant's contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence a copy of his alleged confession. T......
-
Clements v. State
... ... unlawful carrying of prohibited liquors, such words of the ... statute have no meaning and can be given no effect ... The ... statute defines what is an unlawful receipt or keeping for ... sale (Gen.Acts 1915, § 4, p. 9; Maisel v. State, 17 ... Ala.App. 12, 81 So. 348), unlawful possession (State v ... Crosswhite, 203 Ala. 586, 84 So. 813; Jones v ... State, 17 Ala.App. 444, 85 So. 839; Gen.Acts 1915, § 16, ... p. 13), or unlawful delivery of prohibited liquors (Gen.Acts ... 1915, § 5, p. 9). The expression of ... ...
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Dennis
... ... "That on the second page on said application, the ... following question and answer is contained: 'Is your life ... insured?' 'No' 'If so, state the amount, when ... and company?' Answer: '_____.' Said application ... also contains the following: 'For the purposes of this ... application, I ... facie fact, which can only be overturned by evidence to the ... satisfaction of the jury. Hughes on Ev. § 6; Maisel v ... State, 81 So. 348; Roman, Trustee, v. Lentz, ... 177 Ala. 64-71, 58 So. 438; State v. Kelly, 22 N.D ... 5, 132 N.W. 223, Ann.Cas.1913E, ... ...
-
Bradley v. State
... ... well recognized and has often been decided by our courts that ... the possession of any part of a still proven to be commonly ... used in the manufacture of prohibited liquors is prima facie ... evidence of the possession of a complete still, Title 29, ... Sec. 132, Alabama Code 1940; Maisel v. State, 17 ... Ala.App. 12, 81 So. 348; Lindsey v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 494, 93 So. 331; Gamble v. State, 19 ... Ala.App. 82, 95 So. 202 ... In the ... case under consideration it is not denied that parts of a ... still were found on premises in possession of appellant, ... ...