From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gardner v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 3, 1925
102 So. 914 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)

Opinion

7 Div. 28.

February 3, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E.S. Lyman, Judge.

Burk Gardner was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See, also, 19 Ala. App. 369, 97 So. 373.

Riddle Riddle, of Talladega, for appellant.

Defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge. Ballentine v. State, 19 Ala. App. 261, 96 So. 732.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


The indictment was in two counts. The first charged that defendant manufactured whisky, and the second, the possession of a still, etc. There was a verdict of guilty under the first count. Under the law, this was an acquittal of the second count.

The defendant requested the general charge as to the first count which charge was refused. We have carefully examined the record, and nowhere is there any evidence that whisky was in fact manufactured. No whisky was found; no smell of whisky was shown. In fact, nothing was shown by the evidence from which the jury would be authorized to legally find that whisky had been made. The charge as to count 1 should have been given, and for this error the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Gardner v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Feb 3, 1925
102 So. 914 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
Case details for

Gardner v. State

Case Details

Full title:GARDNER v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Feb 3, 1925

Citations

102 So. 914 (Ala. Crim. App. 1925)
102 So. 914

Citing Cases

PATE v. STATE

Gardner v. State (Ala.App.) 102 So. 914; Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595. 20 Ala. App.…

Grimes v. State

Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283, 101 So. 511. Defendant should have had the affirmative charge. Anderson v.…