Seigler v. State
| Decision Date | 06 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 1000. |
| Citation | 95 So. 563,19 Ala.App. 135 |
| Parties | SEIGLER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
John Seigler was convicted of possessing a still, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Joe Starnes and John A. Lusk & Son, all of Guntersville, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecution in this case was by indictment in two counts; the first charging that the defendant manufactured liquor, and the second that he had in his possession a still, etc. After the evidence was all in, the state, by its solicitor, with the consent of the court, eliminated the charge under the first count for lack of evidence to sustain it, and the cause proceeded to judgment under the second count.
In order for the state to sustain a conviction under this count, it must establish by evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had in his possession a still or other apparatus described in the statute. In this case the officers found a still about 1 1/2 miles from the defendant's residence in a wood on the side of the mountain. There was some beer near the still in an inclosure of poplar poles. The still was not on defendant's land, nor was he shown to be in any way connected with its possession, by any fact leading up to the discovery of the still by the officers. The officers, being in hiding near the still, saw defendant, who had a gun on his shoulders, in company with another man, coming in the direction of the still, and, when the two had gotten to the inclosure where the beer was, the defendant put his gun down and went inside the inclosure, looked in one of the boxes containing beer, and "kinder stirred it with a pole." The still was not in the inclosure, and the defendant, so far as the evidence shows, did nothing towards showing possession or exercising any dominion over it. The defendant and his companion were in a pathway leading by the still. Defendant was then and there arrested by the officers and denied ownership, possession, or knowledge of the still. The fact that defendant had a gun, and that it was loaded, was certainly not calculated to shed any light on the possession of the still and should have been excluded. The motion for new trial should have been granted. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. State
... ... miles from the home of defendant, who was seen coming from ... the still with a five-gallon demijohn of whiskey, which he ... carried over the hill and hid in some bushes, and when he ... started back in the direction of the still he observed the ... officers an fied ... Seigler ... v. State, 19 Ala.App. 135, 95 So. 563: A still ... discovered by the officers a mile and a half from the ... defendant's home and not on his land, and while the ... officers were watching the still the defendant in company ... with another man came into the vicinity, went into an ... ...
-
Garsed v. State
...The opinion cites Cunningham v. State, 25 Ala.App. 28, 140 So. 176; Moon v. State, 19 Ala.App. 176, 95 So. 830; Seigler v. State, 19 Ala.App. 135, 95 So. 563; Woodall v. State, 22 Ala.App. 104, 113 So. 85; Davis v. State, 26 Ala.App. 370, 160 So. 266; Mitchell v. State, 18 Ala.App. 119, 89 ......
-
Hightower v. State
... ... 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, 95 So ... Reversed ... and ... ...
-
Miller v. State
... ... and was pursued by one of the officers, caught, and that the ... officer took a pistol off of defendant's person. If the ... motion had been confined to the fact that the officer took a ... pistol off of the person of defendant, such motion would ... probably have been granted. Seigler v. State, 19 ... Ala.App. 135, 95 So. 563. But the fact that defendant ran and ... was pursued at the time and place testified to was relevant ... testimony, and the motion, as made, included both legal and ... illegal matter. The court did not err in overruling the ... The ... ...