Roden v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1912 |
| Parties | RODEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Pick Roden was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
D. Isbell, for appellant.
R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case charged that the defendant "sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, contrary to law," etc. On the trial of such a charge the statute (Acts 1909, p. 84, § 22 1/2) makes it "competent to prove that the party charged has for the place and period of time involved paid a wholesale or retail dealer's * * * special United States internal revenue tax, according as the charge may be." Under this statute it was permissible to receive in evidence a United States internal revenue collector's receipt for the special tax on the business of retail liquor dealer for the place and period involved in the charge, issued to the defendant, and found in his place of business.
This evidence was not rendered inadmissible by the fact that the prosecution had offered evidence tending to show a gift of whisky by the defendant, as the indictment would sustain a conviction of either a gift or a sale.
The suggestion that there was a lack of evidence to show that the offense was committed within the year immediately preceding the date of the finding of the indictment cannot be sustained. The indictment was filed on the 11th day of April, 1910. The trial took place at the same term of the court. The incidents at the defendant's place of business which were testified about by the witnesses for the prosecution were referred to by them as having occurred just before the Marshall county primary election in March. The United States internal revenue collector's receipt to the defendant, which evidence tended to show was found in his place of business on the same occasion, bore date March 2, 1910, and was for the months of March, April, May, and June of that year. This evidence would support an inference that the acts of the defendant which were testified about occurred in March, 1910.
The court was not in error in refusing to give the general affirmative charge in favor of the defendant, which was requested in his behalf.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diamond v. State
...not supported by the evidence, is improper and a reversal will follow where the objection to such remark is overruled. Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 202, 58 So. 72 (1912); Racine, supra. The rule was discussed in Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 237, 238, 13 So. 575, 576 "We do not think a narrow......
-
Taylor v. State
...38 Ala.App. 612, 91 So.2d 697, cert. denied 265 Ala. 698, 91 So.2d 700; Harville v. State, 26 Ala.App. 610, 164 So. 765; Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 202, 58 So. 72; Racine v. State, For the error shown herein, the judgment of conviction is due to be reversed, and the cause is hereby remanded......
-
Watson v. State
...by the subsequent admission thereof. Utreinor v. State, 146 Ala. 26, 41 So. 285; Kirby v. State, 151 Ala. 66, 44 So. 38; Roden v. State, 3 Ala.App. 202, 58 So. 72. Bryan, a state's witness, was recalled for further cross-examination by the defendant, and, after testifying that he went befor......
- Roden v. State