Klein v. State Ex Rel. Evans, 189 So. 771 (Ala. 1939). · Go Syfert
Search
Klein v. State Ex Rel. Evans, 189 So. 771 (Ala. 1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Klein
v.
State Ex Rel. Evans, Deputy Solicitor.
7 Div. 577..
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Jun 8, 1939.
189 So. 771
1939 Ala. LEXIS 362
Knox, Acker Sterne, of Anniston, for appellant. The bare possession of intoxicating liquors does not in itself amount to a nuisance, as defined by Section 4619 of the Code. Harvell v. State, 235 Ala. 329 , 179 So. 233 . Padlocking, a severe remedy depriving one of the use of his property for lawful purposes, should not be exercised unless it is shown from the conduct of the party that he is a persistent violator of the law, determined to evade the law. Garrett v. State, 235 Ala. 457 , 179 So. 636 ; Brooks v. State, 210 Ala. 97 , 97 So. 137 ; Barnett v. State, 235 Ala. 326 , 179 So. 208 ; Ex parte Harvell, 235 Ala. 63 , 177 So. 345 . Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Knight, Anderson, Thomas, Brown, 'Concur.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
KNIGHT, Justice.

Bill to abate a liquor nuisance, filed under the provisions of Sections 4671 et seq., of the Code, by the State of Alabama, on relation of H. H. Evans, Deputy Solicitor of Calhoun County.

The averments of the bill comply in every respect with statutory requirements, and present a case calling into exercise the equity jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Calhoun County to abate an alleged existing liquor nuisance carried on in said county by the appellant, defendant in the court below. Code, §§ 4619, 4671 and 4672. This bill is properly verified by the deputy solicitor, on whose relation it was filed.

The demurrer addressed to the bill is without merit. Barnett v. State ex rel. Simpson, Solicitor et al., 235 Ala. 326, 179 So. 208; Garrett v. State ex rel. Matthews, 235 Ala. 457, 179 So. 636; Harvell v. State ex rel. Sanford, 235 Ala. 329, 179 So. 233.

The evidence offered upon the trial was given ore tenus, and a review and consideration of the same, as found in the record, convinces us that the charges and averments of the bill were fully sustained, and that the court committed no error in its final decree in said cause.

It follows, therefore, that the decree of the circuit court is due to be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BROWN, JJ.,'concur.