Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 283 |
| Citation | 12 Ala.App. 293,68 So. 549 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
On Application for Rehearing, April 20, 1915
Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert Judge.
Marion Thomas was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded on rehearing.
The state witness testified that he went into Thomas' place of business, and on coming out he met a negro whom he had not seen before, but who winked at him, and he then asked the negro if he knew where he could get some whisky, and he said "Yes," and witness gave him money and told him to get him some; that he watched the back door to see if he went out that way as he had gone in the front door,
The oral charge of the court was as follows:
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that defendant had on his premises prohibited liquors, such as whisky, and that said place was not used exclusively as a dwelling, I charge you that this would be prima facie evidence he kept said whisky for sale or with intent to sell the same contrary to law.
The other charge referred to is as follows:
I charge you there is no evidence before you that defendant kept for sale prohibited liquors.
The other written charge is as follows:
If the sole and only connection defendant had with the sale of the prohibited liquor in question consisted in his depositing a package behind the counter, and changing $1 for the negro who sold the whisky, and this constitutes the only connection said defendant had with said whisky, and you so find from the evidence, and if you further find from the evidence that defendant in no way aided or assisted in the sale or delivery of said whisky, and had no knowledge or notice as to what was in the sack, then you should find for defendant.
Wert & Lynne, of Decatur, for appellant.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The facts testified to by the state's witnesses as to the transaction in which the defendant was seen to change some money with and give to the supposed "go-between" a paper sack containing six half pints of whisky, which he delivered to the state's witnesses in completing a sale between them, for which the said witnesses had previously furnished the money with the understanding that they were to receive the whisky, were sufficient to afford a basis for an inference of the defendant's guilt of the crime charged and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. State
... ... regulated thereby, and appeals are subject to be dismissed on ... timely motion for failure to comply with the rules of ... practice. Powell v. State, 5 Ala.App. 150, 59 So ... 328; Lampley v. State, 6 Ala.App. 26, 60 So. 415; ... Thomas v. Speese, 14 Ariz. 556, 132 P. 1137; ... Frierson v. Haley, 1 Ala.App. 576, 55 So. 429; 2 ... Cyc. 1028 ... However, ... if the case is submitted on the merits without motion to ... dismiss, mere irregularities arising from failure to comply ... with the rules of practice, not ... ...
-
Garner v. State
... ... at all support the charge made, or afford inferences to be ... drawn by the jury in support of the charge, it is properly ... left to the jury for determination of its weight. Way v ... State, 155 Ala. 52, 46 So. 273; Tice v. State, ... 3 Ala.App. 164, 57 So. 506; Thomas v. State, 12 ... Ala.App. 293, 68 So. 549. Under the evidence presented in ... this cause it is our opinion that the court's action in ... denying appellant's motion to exclude the evidence and ... discharge appellant was properly denied. Furthermore, no ... grounds were assigned in support of ... ...
-
Thomas v. State
...convicted of violating the law for the suppression of the evils of intemperance (Acts 1909, p. 63), and he appeals. Affirmed. See, also, 68 So. 549. oral charge excepted to is as follows: If you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant had in his store prohibite......