Watson v. State

Decision Date21 June 1913
Citation8 Ala.App. 414,62 So. 997
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
PartiesWATSON v. STATE.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; Mike Sollie, Judge.

Asa Watson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The bill of exceptions shows the following: The defendant then presented to the court a charge which was in writing, and which as originally written was in words and figures as follows: "Charge 5. The defendant had a right to have his own whisky hauled to his home, and the jury must acquit the defendant in this case unless they believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that defendant intended to make unlawful disposition of the whisky." The court first indorsed this charge given, but subsequently refused it, upon observing that the words "and the jury must" following the word "home" and the word "the" after the word "acquit" had each been stricken out by running two pen marks through each of them so as to leave the charge to read as follows "Charge 5. The defendant had a right to have his own whisky hauled to his home, acquit defendant in this case unless they believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that defendant intended to make unlawful disposition of the whisky."

C.S McDowell Jr., of Eufaula, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM, J.

The evidence to the effect that the defendant was seen to go into the express office, and that just after this a wagon drove up to the door of the express office and received four cases of whisky addressed to the defendant, was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of defendant's connection with this shipment of whisky.

The defendant's possession of large quantities of prohibited liquors was material under the alternative charge contained in the indictment that he "kept for sale"; and evidence of the various shipments made to him at or about this time was relevant and properly admitted in evidence. Hauser v. State, 60 So. 549; Freeny v. City of Jasper, 62 So. 385, present term, Dunn v State, 62 So. 996, present term; and authorities cited in the last two cases.

The court permitted the state to prove by one of its witnesses that he (the witness) "thought the defendant was driving around Eufaula for Mr. Harry Brannon." The defendant made timely objection to the question calling for this testimony and moved to exclude the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Slayton v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 1936
    ... ... appellate court may not be able to see that injury resulted ... from the error. Williams v. State, 83 Ala. 16, 3 So ... 616. To the same effect are Ridgell v. State, 1 ... Ala.App. 94, 55 So. 327; Phillips v. State, 3 ... Ala.App. 218, 57 So. 1033; Watson v. State, 8 ... Ala.App. 414, 62 So. 997; Powe v. State, 19 Ala.App ... 215, 96 So. 370, 371. In the latter case it is said, ... "where error is shown to have been committed by a trial ... court, injury is presumed, and the burden and obligation to ... subsequently remove and to wholly ... ...
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 1923
    ...State, 114 Ala. 25, 22 So. 127; Phillips v. State, 3 Ala. App. 218, 57 So. 1033; Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150, 7 So. 824; Watson v. State, 8 Ala. App. 414, 62 So. 997; Rogers v. State, 12 Ala. App. 196, 67 So. 781. stated by Judge Sayre in the Blevins Case, supra: "Its admission was calcul......
  • Slayton v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1937
    ... ... although the appellate court may not be able to see that ... injury resulted from the error. Williams v. State, ... 83 Ala. 16, 3 So. 616. To the same effect are Ridgell ... v. State, 1 Ala.App. 94, 55 So. 327, Phillips v ... State, 3 Ala.App. 218, 57 So. 1033, Watson v ... State, 8 Ala.App. 414, 62 So. 997, Powe v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 215, 96 So. 370, 371. In the latter ... case it is said, 'where error is shown to have been ... committed by a trial court, injury is presumed, and the ... burden and obligation to subsequently remove and to wholly ... ...
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • April 20, 1915
    ... ... purpose of shedding light on the purpose or intent with which ... the prohibited liquors in the store were kept by the ... defendant; it being a material issue in the case whether the ... liquor was kept by the defendant in his store in violation of ... the prohibition law. See Watson v. State, 8 Ala.App ... 414, 62 So. 997 ... There ... was no error in the court's permitting one of the ... state's witnesses, who engaged in the search, to identify ... the bottles labeled "gin" and the bottles labeled ... [68 So. 801.] ... as those he found in the defendant's ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT