Taggett v. City of Tuscaloosa
| Decision Date | 14 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 787 |
| Citation | 12 Ala.App. 617,67 So. 780 |
| Parties | TAGGETT v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court; H.B. Foster, Judge.
Alice Taggett was convicted of violating an ordinance against the keeping or selling of intoxicating liquors, and appeals. Affirmed.
Wright & Fite, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Brown & Ward, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
The points made against the ordinance, for a violation of which the defendant was tried and convicted, we have disposed of adversely to the appellant's contentions in the case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa (Ala.App.) 67 So. 778.
The court properly admitted evidence of a sale made by the defendant of a bottle of beer to one Crider a few days prior to the time when her premises were searched and a large quantity of beer bottles, empty whisky cases, etc., together with a few full bottles of beer and whisky, was found by the searching officers. The court limited the evidence of the sale as going alone to show all an unlawful intent on the part of the defendant in having in her possession the prohibited liquors, and for that purpose it was admissible. Allison v. State, 1 Ala.App. 206, 55 So. 453; Rosenberg v. State, 5 Ala.App. 196, 59 So. 366.
The bottle of beer was identified as the one sold to the witness by the defendant, and there was no error committed in permitting it to be introduced in evidence. Harris v. State, 9 Ala.App. 87, 64 So. 352; Phillips v. State, 156 Ala. 140, 47 So. 245.
The tendencies of the evidence supported the charge made against the defendant, and its weight and sufficiency, involving the question of her guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury (Tice v. State, 3 Ala.App. 164, 57 So. 506), and the court quite properly refused the general charge for the defendant and submitted the case to the jury.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial