From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 16, 1939
189 So. 85 (Ala. Crim. App. 1939)

Opinion

5 Div. 75.

May 16, 1939.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; W. B. Bowling, Judge.

Ruboy Morgan was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Henry K. Dickinson, of Opelika, for appellant.

Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., for the State.


The evidence in this case is without conflict, and tends to prove that the defendant was present at a still suitable to be used in the manufacturing of whiskey; and, at the time the officers appeared, he was exercising acts of ownership over the still. When he saw the officers he fled.

There was further testimony tending to show that there was a well defined path leading from the defendant's house to the still, and that the path had been in constant use. While it appears that the worm to the still was not connected in such way as to manufacture whiskey, under the Statute, Code 1923, § 4656 et seq., the possession of the parts of the still, their presence, coupled with the acts of ownership over it, the defendant's flight, and the proximity and connection of the defendant's house to the still, furnishes testimony sufficient to sustain a conviction.

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

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Morgan v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 16, 1939
189 So. 85 (Ala. Crim. App. 1939)
Case details for

Morgan v. State

Case Details

Full title:MORGAN v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: May 16, 1939

Citations

189 So. 85 (Ala. Crim. App. 1939)
28 Ala. App. 516

Citing Cases

Scott v. State

Perkins v. State, 20 Ala. App. 276, 101 So. 770; Ham v. State, 21 Ala. App. 103, 105 So. 390; Ex parte Hill,…

Johnson v. State

Evidence that the still was on defendant's premises, in close proximity to defendant's house; that a…