Pouncey v. State
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 455,116 So. 803 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 380 |
| Parties | POUNCEY et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W.L. Parks, Judge.
Millard Pouncey and others were convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.
E.C Orme, of Troy, for appellants.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The court en banc have read and considered the evidence in this case, and as to appellant Millard Pouncey, we hold that the evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence which attended him upon his trial. Under every aspect of this case the appellant Pouncey was entitled to his discharge.
The indictment contained but one count, and charged the three appellants jointly with the offense of having a still in their possession to be used for the purpose of manufacturing or distilling prohibited liquors or beverages.
The evidence tended to show that officers lying in wait near a still place saw appellants Jones and Cox drive up in a wagon early one morning, and saw these two men unload from the wagon a large amount of sugar and nine empty kegs, and thereafter started to drive away, but were arrested by the officers. The evidence is conclusive and without dispute that several unassembled parts of a still were at the place in question, but there was no evidence that all the necessary parts of a still outfit were there; a worm and probably other necessary parts were missing.
The indictment charged the offense denounced by section 4656 of the Code 1923, which makes it unlawful for any person, firm or corporation in this state to manufacture, sell, give away or have in possession any still, apparatus, appliance, or any device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing any prohibited liquors or beverages.
Section 4657 of the Code 1923 establishes a rule of evidence, applicable to the facts of the case at bar, and provides that the unexplained possession of any part or parts of any still, apparatus, appliance, or any device or substitute therefor, commonly or generally used for, or that is suitable to be used in, the manufacture of prohibited liquors and beverages, shall be prima facie evidence of the offense prescribed and provided in section 4656 of the Code 1923.
Section 4657 prescribing the rule of evidence has been construed in many decisions of this court, and by the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...19 Ala.App. 124, 95 So. 559; Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 62, 100 So. 914, certiorari denied 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Pouncey v. State, 22 Ala.App. 455, 116 So. 803; Hudson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 217, 31 So.2d 771; Griggs v. State, 18 Ala.App. 467, 93 So. However, 'When the testimony prove......
-
Black v. State
...for insufficiency of evidence, 249 Ala. 372, 31 So.2d 774. See also Johnson v. State, 38 Ala.App. 590, 90 So.2d 164; Pouncey v. State, 22 Ala.App. 455, 116 So. 803. Moreover, the officers' testimony showed that the 'outfit' was 'commonly used or suitable to be used' in the manufacture of wh......
-
Stover v. State, 8 Div. 57
...19 Ala.App. 124, 95 So. 559; Wilson v. State, 20 Ala.App. 62, 100 So. 914, certiorari denied 211 Ala. 574, 100 So. 917; Pouncey v. State, 22 Ala.App. 455, 116 So. 803; Hudson v. State, 33 Ala.App. 217, 31 So.2d 771; certiorari granted on ground of insufficiency of the evidence, 249 Ala. 372......
-
Hightower v. State
... ... and the affirmative charge in behalf of the accused should ... In this ... case the affirmative charge, requested in writing, was ... improperly refused. There was likewise error in overruling ... the motion for a new trial. Pouncey et al. v. State, ... 22 Ala. App. 455, 116 So. 803; Moultrie v. State, 20 ... Ala. App. 258, 101 So. 335; Hanson v. State, 19 Ala ... App. 249, 96 So. 655; Murphy v. State, 20 Ala. App ... 624, 104 So. 686; Guin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 67, 94 ... So. 788; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala. App. 135, ... ...