Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 28 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 649 |
| Citation | 88 So. 205,17 Ala.App. 579 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Weeks Taylor was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Farmer Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted under an indictment which charged that he "did distill, make or manufacture alcoholic or spirituous liquor subsequent to the 25th day of January 1919, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama."
The act under which the defendant was indicted reads as follows:
"That any person, firm or corporation who shall, within this state distill, make or manufacture any alcoholic spirituous, malted or mixed liquors or beverages, any part of which is alcohol, shall be guilty of a felony," etc. Acts 1919, p. 16, § 15.
By demurrer, the defendant raises the preposition that the indictment should contain the allegations, "within this state," and "any part of which is alcohol."
In view of Code 1907, § 7140, it was not necessary to allege in the indictment where the offense was committed, this being a matter of proof.
The phrase "spirituous liquors" in its ordinary sense means liquors composed in part or entirety of alcohol, produced by distillation, and this being so, it was not necessary to allege in the indictment that the spirituous liquors were in part alcohol.
Furthermore, section 29 1/2 of an act approved January 23, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 30). provides that it shall not be necessary to set out in the indictment, complaint, or affidavit, the kind of prohibited liquors manufactured, sold, or otherwise disposed of, and the act of January 25, 1919, under which the defendant was indicted, being a supplemental act and not a complete revision of the laws upon the subject-matter involved, it was therefore unnecessary that the indictment should contain any such allegation.
It having been shown that a still was found by the witness May and Watford in operation about one quarter of a mile from defendant's home; that the still was making rum; that at the still was found 5 empty barrels, two barrels of beer, and 2 gallons of rum, 5 empty jugs, 2 fruit jars filled with flour and water--it was perfectly competent to prove that at this time these same witnesses found at defendant's home 5 1/2 gallons of rum in jugs, as tending to connect the defendant with the manufacture of prohibited liquors. Salter v. State, 85 So. 847.
The proper predicate was laid in this case for the admissions made by the defendant to the witness Watford. Stevens v State, 138 Ala. 71, 35 So....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Application of Speer
... ... aid of effort to prohibit sale of intoxicating liquors, held ... valid exercise of state's police power (I. C. A., secs ... 18-101, 18-102, 18-201) ... APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Writ issued and ... United States, 178 F. 5, 11, 12, ... 101 C. C. A. 133, 21 Ann. Cas. 819; Marks v. State, ... 159 Ala. 71, 48 So. 864, 133 Am. St. 20; Taylor v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 579, 88 So. 205; Henderson v. State, ... 94 Tex. Cr. 97, 250 S.W. 688; 33 C. J. 495.) ... The ... ...
-
Nichols v. State
...of other provisions of the law prohibiting the various phases of the liquor traffic have been received, are numerous: Taylor v. State, 17 Ala. App. 579, 88 South. 205; Richardson v. State, 23 Ariz. 98, 201 Pac. 845; Lowery v. State, 135 Ark. 159, 203 S. W. 838; Thielepape v. State, 89 Tex. ......
-
McKenzie v. State
... ... There ... were demurrers filed to both counts of the indictment, ... assigning 29 grounds, but this court has already many times ... held that indictments similar to the one in this case are not ... subject to demurrer. Barnes v. State, 18 Ala. App ... 344, 92 So. 15; Taylor v. State, 17 Ala. App. 579, ... 88 So. 205; Reese v. State, 18 Ala. App. 357, 92 So ... 77; Holloway v. State, 18 Ala. App. 392, 92 So. 78; ... Layman v. State, 18 Ala. App. 441, 93 So. 66 ... Charge ... 3 was properly refused. It is ... [97 So. 157.] ... not that a witness ... ...
-
Abrahams v. State
... ... Insistence is here made for the first time that the ... indictment does not charge any offense, for that it is not ... charged that any part of the liquors or beverages contained ... alcohol. This contention has been decided adversely to the ... appellant in the case of Taylor v. State, 17 ... Ala.App. 579, 88 So. 205, where the sufficiency of the ... indictment was questioned by demurrer. In addition to what ... was said in the Taylor Case, supra, it may be stated of the ... instant case that the allegation "alcoholic" in the ... indictment certainly is a ... ...