From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Mar 1, 1932
140 So. 176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)

Opinion

6 Div. 69.

January 19, 1932. Rehearing Granted March 1, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster, Judge.

L. D. Cunningham was convicted on a charge of manufacturing whisky, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Livingston Livingston, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.


This defendant was seen carrying a five-gallon jug of whisky from a whisky still. The still was not on land belonging to or under the control of defendant, and there is no evidence tending to connect the defendant with the manufacture of whisky. Another party was attending the still when the officers arrived, and this party was arrested, charged with manufacturing whisky. No one saw defendant do anything except to carry away the five-gallon jug, which they supposed contained whisky. This being all of the evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime charged, he was entitled to the general charge. Moon v. State, 19 Ala. App. 176, 95 So. 830.

For the refusal to give this charge the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

Application for rehearing granted. Former opinion withdrawn. Opinion substituted. Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Cunningham v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Mar 1, 1932
140 So. 176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)
Case details for

Cunningham v. State

Case Details

Full title:CUNNINGHAM v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Mar 1, 1932

Citations

140 So. 176 (Ala. Crim. App. 1932)
140 So. 176

Citing Cases

Purser v. State

Mere presence at a whiskey still on premises of another is insufficient to convict defendant of distilling or…

Hudson v. State

The following cases considered by that court afford sustentive instances where on the facts the defendant was…