Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 February 1903 |
| Citation | 136 Ala. 114,33 So. 831 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Coffee County Court; Jno. M. Laflin, Judge.
P. O Wilson was convicted for selling intoxicating liquors without a license, and he appeals. Reversed.
Sallie & Kirkland, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, Wilson, was indicted in the circuit court of Coffee county for selling spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor without license, and contrary to law. The indictment was transferred to the county court of Coffee under the provisions of the act creating that court (Acts 1900-01, p 861), where he was tried and convicted.
It is urged by the defendant that the above act creating the county court of Coffee is unconstitutional, because it contains a clause which provides that the judge of said court shall be a person "learned in the law," the contention being that it is offensive to section 2 of article 1 of the Constitution of 1875, the act having been passed while the Constitution of 1875 was of force. The case of Kentz v City of Mobile, 120 Ala. 623, 24 So. 952, we think, is conclusive of the question here presented, and adverse to the contention of the appellant. What was there said with reference to the constitutionality of the act being affected by the provision in the clause contained in that act relating to the qualifications of the recorder is applicable here. The provision contained in the act before us relating to the qualification of the judge of the court may be rejected, and still leave the act creating the court a harmonious whole complete in itself.
The indictment contained one count, and was in the form prescribed in the Code. Under it the proof of one act of illegal selling was sufficient to warrant a conviction. The state introduced one Rhodes as a witness, and proved by him that in the early part of January, 1901--that being within the time covered by the indictment--witness bought from the defendant a pint of whisky, and for which witness paid defendant. In this the state made an election, and the court was in error in permitting the solicitor for the state against the objection of the defendant, to introduce evidence showing other and distinct acts of selling at other and different times. As stated above, one illicit sale constituted a violation of the law, and evidence of other sales was irrelevant and inadmissible. It is altogether different from that class of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wills
...State v. Fierline, 19 Mo. 380; State v. Roberts, 33 Mo.App. 524; Driver v. State, 85 S.W. 1056; Parish v. State, 89 S.W. 830; Wilson v. State, 136 Ala. 114, 33 Southern State v. Marshall, 2 Kan.App. 792, 44 P. 49; State v. Hughes, 3 Kan.App. 95, 45 P. 94; State v. Neild, 4 Kan.App. 626, 45 ......
-
Hooper v. State
... ... giving of the portions of the oral charge, to which ... exceptions were reserved, and the refusal to give the several ... charges requested by the defendant ... Street ... & Isbell, for appellant ... Massey ... Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State ... HARALSON, ... Hooper, ... the defendant, returned for the year 1903 an assessment of ... personal property at $25,000. It consisted, as shown by the ... return, of "moneyed capital, that is, money lent, ... solvent credits, or credits of ... ...
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Graham
... ... Graham. From ... a judgment quashing a writ of certiorari, plaintiff appeals ... Affirmed ... Wilson ... & Tucker, of Grove Hill, for appellant ... John S ... Graham, of Jackson, for appellee ... [4 ... Ala.App. 399] ... affirmance necessarily follows. City of Jasper v. Barton, ... 1 Ala. App. 472, 56 So. 42; Hooper v. State, ... 141 Ala. 111, 37 So. 662; Wilson v. State, 136 Ala ... 114, 33 So. 831; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633, ... 31 So. 555; Cottingham v ... ...
-
Jefferson v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 520
...of a single sale of intoxicating liquor without a license was sufficient to constitute a violation of the liquor laws. Wilson v. State, 136 Ala. 114, 33 So. 831 (1903). IV Appellant's final contention is that the trial court erred by not giving certain written requested jury charges. All of......