Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Ala. App. 662

88 So 49

Peterson v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 15, 1921

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1921-02-15

E. Gamble, Judge. John Peterson was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. The evidence tended to show that on a Sunday morning two of the witnesses went to the home of the defendant, and, while one remained on the outside, the other went in and purchased a half pint of rum. The defendant’s evidence tended to contradict this. The judgment was not sufficient. 123 Ala. 48, 20 South. 512; 12; Ala. App. 230, 67 South. 719.

Relies on Roberson v. State · 15 Ala. App. 187 - Ross v. State · Smith v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 1977 · most notably 53 Ala. App. 272 - Moseley v. State (1974), 30 Ala. App. 26 - Winchester v. State (1940)

29 state decisions

100192119301940195019601970decided

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 →

MERRITT, J.

¶1 [1] The appellant was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury, for a violation of the prohibition laws, and was convicted. The judgment entry recites that it is “ordered and adjudged by the court that the- defendant is guilty, and assesses a fine against him of $100, together with the cost.” Immediately following this, and as a part of the judgment entry, is the judgment of sentence pronounced by the *663 court, showing that upon the failure of the defendant to pay or confess the fine and cost “he is formally sentenced to hard labor for the county for 30 days to pay the fine, *' … and 76 days to pay the cost. The defendant is also sentenced to hard labor for 30 days as an additional sentence imposed by the court.” This judgment was sufficient. Franklin v. State, 11 Ala. App. 305, 66 South. 875; Roberson v. State, 123 Ala. 57, 26 South. 645; Smith v. State, 4 Ala. App. 212, 58 South. 117.

¶2 [2] The testimony was taken ore tenus, and the trial court had the opportunity of observing the demeanor of the witnesses, which this court has not. A finding by the court under these circumstances is treated like the verdict of a jury, and the finding will not be disturbed unless plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence. And this rule applies notwithstanding the Act of 1915, p. 939. Maisel v. State, 81 South. 348; 1 Ross v. State, 15 Ala. App. 187, 72. South. 759. There was sufficient evidence upon which to found ■ the judgment of guilt.

¶3 There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

¶4 Affirmed.

1

¶5 Ante, p. 12.

/17/alaapp/662 · .json · Public domain