Mitchell v. State
| Citation | 141 Ala. 90,37 So. 407 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 21 July 1904 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Ed B. Almon, Judge.
John L Mitchell was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors without a license and contrary to law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Walker & Frierson, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was convicted under an indictment the first count of which was drawn in accordance with the form prescribed by section 5077 of the Code of 1896, which form has, by the terms of that section and decisions of this court, been declared to be good "for any violation of any special and local laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors within the place specified." Cost v State, 96 Ala. 60, 11 So. 435; Powell v. State, 69 Ala. 10. The evidence showed without dispute that defendant, in his store in East Florence, Lauderdale county upon the receipt of $1 from O'Brien, let the latter have a quart of brandy, which he (defendant) had bought in Tuscumbia for and at the request of a third person; that he had paid for the brandy $1, which the third person had supplied for that purpose; and that he gave to that third person the dollar handed him by O'Brien. This evidence establishes that defendant sold the brandy, and whether he did so for the accommodation of O'Brien or for profit is immaterial. In the transaction he acted as the vendor, and not as the agent of O'Brien, and therefore the doctrine which in Maples v. State, 130 Ala. 121, 30 So. 428 and other like cases cited in brief of counsel, was applied in exoneration of persons acting as agents for the purchase of liquor, is not here applicable.
Act Feb. 26, 1903 (Loc. Acts 1903, p. 62), by its title and by its sections 1 and 22 purports to prohibit the sale, giving away, or otherwise disposing of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors in Lauderdale county, otherwise than by a dispensary and a branch thereof provided for by other sections of the act; and said section 22 prescribes punishment to be imposed on any person selling, giving away, or otherwise disposing of such liquors contrary to the provisions of the act. By section 29 of this act it is declared that "if said dispensary shall not be put in operation, be suspended, closed, or cease to be operated, either by action of said mayor and aldermen, and said court of county commissioners, or from any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosenberg v. State
... ... signed by the judge incorrect, he should have proceeded ... regularly under the statute to establish a correct bill ... The ... words in the indictment "without a license" are ... mere surplusage. The indictment was sufficient. Scott v ... State, 57 So. 413; Mitchell v. State, 141 Ala ... 90, 37 So. 407; Olmstead v. State, 89 Ala. 16, 7 So ... The ... argument that the indictment should have alleged whether the ... prosecution was for the first or second offense (Acts 1909, ... p. 10, § 3) cannot prevail. No evidence of a former ... conviction ... ...
-
State v. George
...held directly that the word 'or' for 'and' is not fatal for uncertainty. Thomas v. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 92, 17 S.E. 789; Mitchell v. State, 141 Ala. 90, 37 So. 407; v. State, 96 Ala. 60, 11 So. 435; 2 McLain's Criminal Law, § 1273. Again we quote: 'It is not error to charge the offense of s......
-
Freeman v. State
... ... strict construction to every word in the above ... indictment, it was plainly sufficient. It may charge more ... than the law now requires such an indictment to charge, but ... it plainly charges the defendant with a violation of our ... present prohibition laws. Code, § 7353; Mitchell v ... State, 141 Ala. 90, 37 So. 407; Olmstead v ... State, 89 Ala. 16, 7 So. 775; Tonsey v. State, ... 151 Ala. 83, 44 So. 183 ... There ... is no error in the record. The judgment of the court below is ... affirmed ... ...
-
Sykes v. State
...99 Ala. 155, 13 So. 536; Roberson's Case, supra. The affirmative charge requested by the defendant was properly refused. Mitchell v. State, 141 Ala. 90, 37 So. 407. and remanded. TYSON, C.J., and ANDERSON and DENSON, JJ., concur. ...