Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925

Prewitt v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals · Decided February 3, 1925 · Samford, Bice

106 So. 52; 21 Ala. App. 64; 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 215 (Southern Reporter)

Counsel

Foster, Rice Foster, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant. It was reversible error to refuse defendant's requested charge and to deny defendant's motion for a new trial. Moultrie v. State, 20 Ala. App. 258 , 101 So. 335 ; Ammons v. State, 20 Ala. App. 283 , 101 So. 511 . Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Ex parte State ex rel. Atty. Gen., 210 Ala. 55 , 97 So. 426 . There is no error in refusing an argumentative charge.

Opinion of the Court

SAMFORD, J.

We can see no good purpose in discussing the facts of this ease in detail. The defendant was in immediate possession of a house in which was found a can containing several gallons of whisky. When the officers began to search the premises defendant went directly to this can, took it up, and started with it in the direction of a sink, used for washing milk bottles. One of the officers took the can away from him, and brought it away. The facts testified to and the inferences to be drawn from the fact *65 were sufficient upon which to base a verdict, which we will not disturb on motion for new trial. Maisel v. State, 17 Ala. App. 12, 81 So. 348.

Charge 4, refused to defendant, is an argument.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

BICE, J., not sitting.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.