Court Opinion

ID: 9825004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:53:23.980236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:19.733875
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, J.
The appellant was convicted under an affidavit which charged that he “had in his possession, spirituous, vinous, fermented, malted, or other intoxicating or prohibited liquor since January 25,1919.”
[1] Tbe first ground of demurrer raises the proposition that the act under which the affidavit is made has been superseded by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the act of Congress known as the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305). This proposition has been decided adversely to appellant’s contention in State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U. S. 350, 40 Sup. Ct. 486, 64 L. Ed. 946; Com. v. Nickerson, 236 Mass. 281, 128 N. E. 273, 10 A. L. R. 1568; Ex parte Ramsey (D. C.) 265 Fed. 950; State v. Hosmer, 144 Minn. 342, 175 N. W. 685; City of Shreveport v. Marx, 148 La. 31, 86 South. 602.
The affidavit charges an offense under Acts 1919, 'p. 7, § 2, which makes it a crime for any one to have in possession any prohibited liquor, and any intoxicating liquor is a prohibited liquor. It is also provided in this act (Acts 1919, p. 7, § 1) that the term “prohibited liquors and beverages” shall include all brewed oh fermented liquors and beverages by whatever name called.
[2] It was not necessary to allege the kind of prohibited liquor nor the quantity of liquor the defendant had in his possession. Under the act of 1919 it is a crime to have in one’s possession “any” prohibited liquor “in any quantity whatsoever.”
[3] There was no reversible error in sustaining the solicitor’s objection to the question propounded to the defendant. The fact, if it be a fact, that the arresting officers had a warrant for Bob Logan for a like offense, *167and that the defendant was mistaken for him, could have thrown no light on defendant’s guilt, vel non, as regards this particular charge against him.
[4] Refused written charge 2. is a duplication of given written charge 1.
[5] The evidence being in conflict, the general affirmative charge was properly refused.
[6] Charge 4 is had, in that it uses the word “possibility.” Nichols v. State, 100 Ala. 23, 14 South. 539. It also predicates a finding upon consideration of only a part of the evidence. Cheney v. State, 172 Ala. 368, 55 South. 803.
There is no error in the record, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.

®=3Poi’ other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes