Segars v. State

Decision Date17 December 1889
Citation88 Ala. 144,7 So. 46
PartiesSEGARS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; S.E. GREENE, Judge.

The indictment in this case charged, in a single count "that Louis Segars and Phillip Segars sold spirituous vinous, or malt liquors, without a license, and contrary to law." The defendants being jointly tried, and a jury having been waived, the following bill of exceptions was reserved: "The defendant being jointly indicted and tried with Louis Segars, the state introduced one Dunford as witness, whose testimony tended to show that at Pratt Mines in said county, within twelve months before the finding of the indictment in this case, the defendant and Louis Segars kept a store, and that he, witness, had purchased from Phillip Segars, at said store, wine on several occasions sometimes by the bottle and sometimes by the drink; that he did not recollect ever to have bought wine from the defendant while Louis Segars was present and saw him buy it, but his recollection was that Louis was about the store; that he could not say that Phillip and Louis were partners, nor which was proprietor, or which (if either) was clerk; that both attended to the business, but Phillip seemed to attend mostly to it, and the store was generally called 'Segars' Store.' The state asked the witness if he had ever bought any spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, at said store, from Louis Segars. To this question the defendant objected, as being irrelevant; that the state had charged the defendants with one joint act, and they could not, under the indictment be prosecuted for two separate and distinct acts. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant excepted. The witness then testified that, on several occasions, he had bought from said Louis, in said store, a white kind of liquor, which was intoxicating, but did not know what it was; and that he could not remember that on any of these occasions said Phillip was present, or knew of his buying it. Said witness further testified on cross-examination, that he did not know what kind of wine it was he bought; that it had a red or dark color, and he paid 25 cents per bottle for it, that he always bought it from Phillip, and never from Louis, nor Louis and Phillip together; that the defendants were not partners, so far as he knew, and he did not know who owned or ran the store; that Phillip seemed to be the principal man; that he did not recollect ever seeing Louis around when he was trading with Phillip, nor Phillip about when he was trading with Louis; that he never bought...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT