Porter v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 964 |
| Citation | 15 Ala.App. 218,72 So. 776 |
| Parties | PORTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T.L. Sowell, Judge.
Jim Porter was convicted of violations of the liquor laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Leith & Gunn, of Jasper, for appellant.
William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P.W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The affidavit or complaint upon which appellant was prosecuted was sworn out before a justice of the peace on March 13 1915, and consisted of eight counts. The trial court, at the request of appellant, gave the affirmative charge as to all the counts except 1, 7, and 8.
Count No. 1 charged that defendant "sold, offered for sale kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors contrary to law." The affidavit followed the language of the prohibition statute (Acts 1909, p. 90, § 29 1/2), which is expressly declared by said section to be sufficient and has been judicially so determined in numerous cases. Kirk's Case, 70 So. 990; Turner's Case, 70 So 971; Arrington's Case, 69 So. 385; Whaley's Case, 69 So. 384; Bush's Case, 12 Ala.App. 260, 67 So. 847. The demurrer to count 1 were not meritorious.
Count numbered 7 is drawn under section 24 of the act commonly known as the Fuller Bill (Acts 1909, pp. 86, 87) and charges (omitting statement as to time and probable cause), that defendant "transported over or along a public street or highway spirituous liquors for another whose name to affiant is unknown, said liquors so transported were transported along the streets of Cordova in Walker County, Ala." Where an offense is of statutory creation it may be laid down as a general rule as sufficient to describe or charge the offense in the language of the statute creating and defining it. Manson & Franklin v. State, 42 Ala. 543. A similar complaint to count 7 was held to be good by this court in Hall's Case, 12 Ala.App. 210, 67 So. 714. This count is also invulnerable against the attack of the demurrers interposed.
Count numbered 8 was drawn under section 12 of what is commonly known as the Bonner antishipping (Acts 1915 p. 44); this section was amended and superseded by section 3 of an amendatory act (Acts 1915, p. 553, §§ 3 and 6); but at the time of the affidavit section 12 had not been amended. This section makes it unlawful to receive or accept for delivery or to possess or have in possession at any one time more than one-half gallon of spirituous liquors. The complaint properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 970
...69 So.2d 877. We held that the indictment was sufficient although it did not contain the word 'unlawful.' See also, Porter v. State, 15 Ala.App. 218, 72 So. 776; Riley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 180, 23 So.2d We come now to the third aspect of this review. The solution of this question has invit......
-
Dorgan v. State
... ... These counts were, ... substantially, in the language of said Section 28, which ... created and declared the offense and which prescribed with ... definiteness the constituents thereof. They were, therefore, ... legally sufficient and not subject to the demurrers ... interposed. Porter v. State, 15 Ala.App. 218, 72 So ... 776; Mason and Franklin v. State, 42 Ala. 543; ... Nix v. State, 27 Ala.App. 94, 166 So. 716 ... If the ... remaining counts were defective at all, they were rendered so ... by setting out therein, some but not all of the exemptions [29 ... ...
-
Oliver v. State
...59 So. 710; Gleason v. State, 6 Ala.App. 49, 60 So. 518; Sellers v. State, 7 Ala.App. 78, 61 So. 485; McLain v. State, 72 So. 511; Porter v. State, 72 So. 776; Brannon State, 76 So. 991. As was said in Curlee v. State, 75 So. 268: "The indictment cannot be sustained on the theory that the a......
-
Hallmark v. State
...Ala. App. 229, 96 So. 718; Masters v. State, 18 Ala. App. 614, 94 So. 249; McLain v. State, 15 Ala. App. 24, 72 So. 511; Porter v State, 15 Ala. App. 218, 72 So. 776. demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled. It was competent for the state's witness Gay, after having been first q......