History
  • No items yet
midpage
Slaughter v. State
23 Ala. App. 390
| Ala. Ct. App. | 1930
|
Check Treatment

The contention is made that the indictment as to the second count is void and will not support a conviction, in that one of the alternative charges contained therein charges no offense known to the law. Formerly there might have been some pith to this contention, but the Supreme Court, speaking through Bouldin, J. (125 So. 6061), has now decided that as applied to the prohibition laws, "buy" means "to possess." Of course, the words are not synonymous in any other connection within the jurisprudence of any commonwealth, so far as we know, but in Alabama, for the time being, in prosecutions charging possession of whisky or whisky stills, "to buy" means "to possess." Jinright v. State, ante, p. 351, 125 So. 604; Id.,220 Ala. 268, 125 So. 606.

The evidence was in conflict. The affirmative charge was properly refused. There being no prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1 220 Ala. 268.

Case Details

Case Name: Slaughter v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jan 14, 1930
Citation: 23 Ala. App. 390
Docket Number: 6 Div. 728.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.