From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ritz v. City of Birmingham

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jan 15, 1929
119 So. 596 (Ala. Crim. App. 1929)

Opinion

6 Div. 393.

January 15, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Russell McElroy, Judge.

W. R. Ritz was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Birmingham, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Jacobs Carmack, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Counsel discuss the questions raised and treated, but without citing authorities.

W. J. Wynn and Ralph E. Parker, both of Birmingham, for appellee.

There was no error in refusal to grant a continuance. Grace v. State, ante, p. 360, 115 So. 761; Blevins v. State, 20 Ala. App. 229, 101 So. 478. Evidence of other whisky in defendant's room was admissible. Hope v. State, 21 Ala. App. 491, 109 So. 521; Gardner v. State, 21 Ala. App. 566, 110 So. 61; Green v. State, 21 Ala. App. 201, 106 So. 683; Little v. State, 21 Ala. App. 54, 105 So. 708. Defendant was not due the affirmative charge. Lynn v. State, 21 Ala. App. 2, 106 So. 344.


Appellant, under the terms of an ordinance of the city of Birmingham, was convicted of the offense of having in his possession a quantity of whisky. There was no demurrer to the complaint under which he was tried, and the only questions for our consideration are presented by a few rulings of the trial court on the taking of testimony, the action of the court in refusing to grant a continuance of the case, when it was called for trial, and the refusal, by the court, to give at appellant's request the general affirmative charge in his favor.

All the questions are simple. There being positive evidence, on behalf of the state, of the finding of some whisky (a very small quantity, to be sure, less than a quart) in the home of defendant, and that he told the officers finding it that it was his, of course the general affirmative charge was properly denied him.

No abuse of the trial court's discretion appears in his action in refusing to continue the case.

It was proper to allow the witnesses to describe, as a part of the res gestæ of the transaction, the condition of the rooms where the liquor was found; that is, that there were empty bottles, smelling as though they had recently contained whisky, in one of them.

We have searched the record, but find no prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Ritz v. City of Birmingham

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jan 15, 1929
119 So. 596 (Ala. Crim. App. 1929)
Case details for

Ritz v. City of Birmingham

Case Details

Full title:RITZ v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Jan 15, 1929

Citations

119 So. 596 (Ala. Crim. App. 1929)
119 So. 596

Citing Cases

Milam v. State

There was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to pass the case. Ritz v. City of Birmingham, 22 Ala. App.…

Delevie v. State

Hoppins v. State, 337 So.2d 134, 138 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976). Where the ground for continuance was known in…