Court Opinion

ID: 9825226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:21:30.814389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:37.705481
License: Public Domain

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for a violation of the state prohibition law by having beer in his possession unlawfully.
The undisputed, proof disclosed that the officers found a large quantity of lager beer labelled “Budweiser,” “Schlitz” and “Cooks,” on defendant’s premises in a little unfinished house near his dwelling. Also an ice box with ice in it containing some of said beer, and that the defendant on that occasion admitted the beer was his, and he also so testified on the trial of this case.
The exceptions reserved to the court’s ruling upon the admission of evidence are without merit. Most of the evidence in this connection was of the res gestae and tended to describe the locus in quo. Other exceptions reserved pending the trial are likewise unavailing to defendant as no reversible error appears in any of these rulings.
The judgment of conviction in this case is affirmed upon authority of Williams v. State, ante, p. 73, 179 So. 915.
Affirmed.