BALLARD v. STATE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3 Div. 886.

Attorney(S)

E. T. Graham and C. H. Roquemore, both of Montgomery, for appellant. The state had the burden of proving that defendant unlawfully sold or bartered liquors within the state and county; and questions inquiring generally whether he had been or was engaged in such business were objectionable. Brown v. State, 4 Ala. App. 122, 58 So. 794; Valverdi v. State, 21 Ala. App. 606, 110 So. 594. It was error to permit the witness, in answer to the question, "Do you know of your own knowledge whether he sells or has been in the business of handling intoxicating liquors?" to answer, "He told me that he was." Valverdi v. State, 21 Ala. App. 606, 110 So. 594; Martin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 406, 78 So. 322. The witness should not have been permitted to testify that he knew defendant as a bootlegger. Martin v. State, supra. Counsel further argue for error in the charge of the court and ruling on the motion for new trial. Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and J. W. Brassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. There was no error in rulings on the evidence. Wallace v. State, 16 Ala. App. 85, 75 So. 633; Brannon v. State, 16 Ala. App. 259, 76 So. 991; Bartlett v. State, 7 Ala. App. 86. 60 So. 958.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BALLARD v. STATE.

PER CURIAM.

The argument for petitioner overlooks the limited review of this court of decisions of the Court of Appeals to questions of law therein presented, as set forth in Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91, and subsequent cases. Most of the questions here argued were not treated or considered by the Court of Appeals, and do not come within the purview of our review of the decisions of that court. Jackson v. State, 217 Ala. 563, 117 So. 157; Polytinsky v. Wilson, 215 Ala. 455, 111 So. 276; Campbell v. State, 216 Ala. 295, 112 So. 902.

Nor do we think the opinion of the Court of Appeals is to be construed as indicating a conviction obtainable under paragraph 4 of section 5571, Code of 1923, upon proof of reputation of defendant as a "bootlegger." There is no disagreement with the common understanding and meaning of that word as stated in the opinion. Its connection with any definite ruling of the court is not made to appear.

Under the authorities supra, the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

BALLARD v. STATE.

Comments