Smith v. State ex rel. Sullinger
| Decision Date | 01 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 844 |
| Parties | W. R. SMITH v. STATE ex rel. H. H. SULLINGER, Deputy Solicitor. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Edw. L. Ball, Bessemer, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., Robt. Straub and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appeal in this case was taken on the 28th day of December, 1954, by the appellant, after a decree padlocking his place of business was entered by the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, Bessemer Division, sitting in equity. According to the record, the transcript was filed with the clerk of the circuit court on the 7th day of March, 1955, and was filed with the clerk of this court on April 12, 1955. On the 19th day of April, 1955, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the transcript was not filed in this court within 60 days of the taking of the appeal, as was required by Title 7, Sec. 769, Code of Alabama 1940.
The appellee's motion was not filed until after the transcript was filed in this court, and there has been no showing that there was any injury to the appellee resulting from the delay in filing the transcript. The motion is, therefore, denied. Campbell v. Sowell, 230 Ala. 109, 159 So. 813; Spruiell v. stanford, 258 Ala. 212, 61 So.2d 758.
The appellant argues that the bill of complaint is not sufficient to allege a liquor nuisance because the possession of intoxicating beverages is not prohibited in Jefferson County, Alabama. However, the bill is not based on the possession of prohibited liquors, but alleges that appellant was maintaining a liquor nuisance in the form of an unlawful drinking place; and we are of the opinion that the bill is sufficient as against appellant's demurrers. West v. State ex rel. Matthews, 223 Ala. 588, 173 So. 46; Lovett v. State, 30 Ala.App. 334, 6 So.2d 437, certiorari denied 242 Ala. 356, 6 So.2d 441; Title 29, Sec. 140, Code of Alabama 1940.
The intoxicating beverages which the testimony showed were being illegally sold at the appellant's place of business were all duly taxed and labeled, and purchased from a state store. For this reason, according to the appellant, they were not 'prohibited liquors' and, therefore, the evidence did not warrant a finding by the trial court that the appellant was maintaining a liquor nuisance. This contention is refuted by the decision in Lovett v. State, supra, in which the court held that liquor duly taxed and labeled and bought from a state store can be 'prohibited liquor' in a wet county when such liquor is put to an illegal use.
The appellant argues that the decree of the trial court is contrary to the preponderance and the great weight of the evidence. We will not set out the evidence in full, but it is sufficient to say that there was sufficient evidence on the part of the state to warrant a finding that the appellant was maintaining a liquor nuisance. Where, as here, the evidence is ore tenus before the judge, the finding of the trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless the finding is clearly against the great weight of the evidence. Harvell v. State ex rel. Sanford, 235 Ala. 329, 179 So. 233. We are unable to say that the finding of the trial judge in this case is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
The premises upon which the state charges the appellant maintained a liquor nuisance consisted of a main building housing a restaurant, a dance hall, and the living quarters of the appellant and his wife,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vestavia Country Club v. Armstrong, 6 Div. 472
...v. State ex rel. Burns, 263 Ala. 281, 82 So.2d 218; Davis v. State ex rel. Pettus, 264 Ala. 233, 86 So.2d 849; Smith v. State ex rel. Sullinger, 265 Ala. 138, 90 So.2d 225; Hagan v. Crowley, 265 Ala. 291, 90 So.2d 760; McBee v. McBee, 265 Ala. 414, 91 So.2d 675; Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co......
-
Bredeson v. Croft
...if nothing else had been presented. But appellants filed a motion in opposition and also cited decisions of this court. In Smith v. State, 265 Ala. 138, 90 So.2d 225, a suit to abate a nuisance, where the same grounds for dismissal were urged as are presented here, this court 'The appellee'......
-
Boohaker v. McSwain, 6 Div. 474
...v. State ex rel. Burns, 263 Ala. 281, 82 So.2d 218; Davis v. State ex rel. Pettus, 264 Ala. 233, 86 So.2d 849; Smith v. State ex rel. Sullinger, 265 Ala. 138, 90 So.2d 225; Hagan v. Crowley 265 Ala. 291, 90 So.2d 760; McBee v. McBee, 265 Ala. 414, 91 So.2d 675; Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins. Co.......
-
Allen v. State ex rel. Simpson
...premises, for the record before us does not disclose the necessity for such a drastic remedy. This Court, in Smith v. State ex rel. Sullinger, 265 Ala. 138, 90 So.2d 225 (1956), considered the seriousness of padlock orders and enunciated a standard for trial courts which wish to utilize "Pa......