Whaley v. State

• Decision Date: 17 June 1915
• Docket Number: 379
• Citation: 69 So. 384,13 Ala. App. 356
• Parties: WHALEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

69 So. 384

13 Ala.App. 356

WHALEY v. STATE.

No. 379

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 17, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.

Harper C. Whaley was convicted of crime, and he appeals.Affirmed.

J.A Carnley, of Elba, for appellant.

William L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and W.H. Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

BROWN J.

The defendant was convicted of an offense denounced by section 24 of the Acts of the Legislature(Sp.Sess.1909, p. 86), which provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, whether a common carrier or not, to accept from another for shipment, transportation or delivery, or to ship, transport or deliver for another said prohibited liquors or beverages or any of them, when received at one point, place or locality in this state to be shipped or transported to or delivered to another person, firm or corporation at another point, place, or locality in this state, or to convey or transport over or along any public street or highway any of such prohibited liquors for another and any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

It will be noted that this section defines four separate offenses (1) That of accepting "prohibited liquors" from another for shipment or delivery; (2) that of shipping "prohibited liquors for another"; (3) that of delivering prohibited liquors to another (one of the constituent elements of the above enumerated offenses is that the prohibited liquors must have been received at one point, place, or locality in this state to be shipped or transported to or delivered to another person, firm, or corporation at another place or locality in this state); and (4) that of conveying or transporting over or along any public street or highway such prohibited liquors for another.

In one of our recent decisions we had occasion to consider the sufficiency of a complaint or indictment for the violation of this statute, in which it was held that the form of indictment or complaint prescribed by section 29 1/2 of the act was broad enough and covered the offenses denounced by section 24, supra.Bush v. State,67 So. 847.This disposes of the contention of the appellant that the first count of the complaint filed by the solicitor was a departure from the original affidavit and charged a different offense, and justifies the ruling of the court on the demurrer to that count.

We are of opinion that appellant's contention that the second count is not sufficiently specific, in that it failed to aver that the prohibited liquors were transported for another, is not tenable.While the count does...