Stewart v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 758 |
| Parties | STEWART v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; C.P. Almon, Judge.
W.J Stewart was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the offense of making or manufacturing spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors; his term of imprisonment being fixed by the court within the limits provided by law.
On this appeal it is earnestly insisted that the state failed to make out its case, in that it failed to prove that whisky had been made, and therefore failed to prove that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged, and was therefore entitled to the affirmative charge as a consequence of such failure of proof. The case of Mills v. State. 17 Ala.App. 493 85 So. 867, is cited by defendant to sustain this contention. In the Mills Case this court held that the corpus delicti had not been proven, and therefore the defendant should have been given the affirmative charge.
An examination of the facts in the Mills Case clearly shows that they were widely different from the facts in this case as disclosed by the record. In the Mills Case nothing was found by the arresting officers, except an empty tin container that smelled like beer had been in it, and a top to the container, with a hole near its edge; also a small quantity of "mixture that appeared to contain corn meal or mash, water, and some syrup"--out of which the state's testimony showed that alcoholic liquor or beverages might have been distilled or manufactured. And after a careful search of the Mills dwelling and surrounding premises no finished product was found, and nothing to show that any of the prohibited liquors had been distilled, made or manufactured. This was the evidence upon which this court very properly held that the defendant, who was charged with distilling, should have had the affirmative charge given in his behalf, for the very patent reason that there was no evidence whatever in that case that any one had distilled, made, or manufactured prohibited liquors, and that the verdict of guilt was necessarily based upon supposition, conjecture, or suspicion, which of course, is not sufficient under the elementary rules of law to predicate or sustain a conviction.
However the record in the case at bar discloses a very different state of facts. In the instant case it was shown without dispute that a furnace for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Glasburn
...I ought to have,' he said. He kind of laughed, and he said 'Well, I know that it ain't no crime enough to hang me anyhow.' * * *" In Stewart v. State, supra, the syllabus "In a prosecution for unlawfully distilling intoxicating liquors, evidence that a complete still, which apparently had b......
- Ingram Land Co. v. Tubb
-
Anderson v. State
... ... was not hog feed but was mash or beer, as charged in the ... indictment ... A ... charge of unlawfully distilling intoxicating liquors can be ... sustained by circumstantial evidence, just as any other ... accusation can be. Stewart v. State (Ala.), 90 So ... Evidence ... that accused was found in possession of whisky and a still, ... unsatisfactorily explained, held to sustain conviction for ... unlawful manufacture. Milton v. State (Tex.), 244 ... S.W. 1013. I do not think that appellant's contention in ... ...
-
Nuby v. State
... ... been given. There were sufficient facts to submit to the jury ... the question of the guilt vel non of the defendant, and the ... court did not err in its refusal to give the affirmative ... charge for the defendant. White v. State, 18 Ala ... App. 275, 91 So. 888; Stewart v. State, 18 Ala. App ... 114, 90 So. 49 ... We find ... no error in the record. The judgment of the circuit court is ... affirmed ... ...