Salts v. State
| Decision Date | 11 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 309 |
| Citation | Salts v. State, 215 Ala. 247, 110 So. 170 (Ala. 1926) |
| Parties | Albert B. SALTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
J. Morgan Prestwood, of Andalusia, for petitioner.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Petition of Albert B. Salts for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Salts v. State,110 So. 169.
Writ denied.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
2 cases
-
Cook v. State, 6 Div. 489
...denied, 216 Ala. 655, 114 So. 772 (1927); "charged" for "charge", Salts v. State, 21 Ala.App. 573, 110 So. 169, cert. denied, 215 Ala. 247, 110 So. 170 (1926); "controll" for "controlled", Henry v. State, 57 Ala.App. 383, 328 So.2d 634 (1976); "cornally" for "carnally", Brown v. State, 15 A......
-
Gordon v. State
... ... introduction being interposed, that its correctness be first ... established by the person who took the notes and transcribed ... them. Such was not done in this case. Dubose v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 193, 101 So. 911, certiorari denied, ... 212 Ala. 190, 101 So. 912; Salts v. State, 21 ... Ala.App. 573, 110 So. 169, certiorari denied 215 Ala. 247, ... 110 So. 170 ... Any ... person who was present and heard appellant's statements ... could have testified as to their content. This procedure was ... not however followed, but the unsigned writing ... ...