108 So. 587 | Ala. | 1926
The proceeding was in equity to condemn an automobile alleged to have been used in the illegal transportation of prohibited liquors. There was intervention by an alleged owner. The decree, on testimony taken ore tenus, was for condemnation.
The presumption obtaining is that the decree will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the same is plainly erroneous. Such judgment has the weight of a verdict of a jury. Andrews v. Grey,
The word "liquor," as used by the witness and in the context, was authorized to be given by the trial court its generally understood meaning — that it was an intoxicating liquor. 33 C. J. p. 495, § 13; Marks v. State,
We find no reversible error in the admission or rejection of evidence. The inference is that claimant knew the car was being used for the transportation of prohibited liquors, when considered in the light of the evidence of the reputation of claimant and his agent or driver as "being a liquor dealer" in the county where the car was seized, and that that bad reputation of Tillery had obtained for "12 or 18 months," and that of intervener in said "community" had obtained for "2 or 3 years" next preceding the trial.
The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur. *674