Tarkins v. State

Decided November 15, 1895

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1895-11-15

. Tried before Hon. N. D. DeNSON. • The only question raised hy this appeal is upon the sufficiency of the second count of the indictment, which is thus written “The grand jury of said county further charge that before the finding of this indictment, Tarkins, whose given name is to the grand jury unknown, gave .away or delivered spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, or intoxicating bitters within precinct seven, in said county, against the peace and dignity of the State of…

Relies on Williams v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1932

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BRICKELL, C. J.

¶1The single defect in the second count of the indictment, is, the omission to aver that the sale, gift, or delivery of the liquor, or intoxicating bitters, was ‘ ‘contrary to law.” This averment is found in the form prescribed by the Code, and without it, the courtfis not informed that each of the alternatives stated in the count, is an indictable offense. — Williams v. State, 91 Ala. 14. There was error in overruling the demurrer to this count.

¶2The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, but the defendant will remain in custody until discharged by due course of law.