# Wray v. State

> Alabama Court of Appeals · August 1, 1916 · 15 Ala. App. 81

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3232641

## Case

- **Full name:** Wray v. the State
- **Court:** Alabama Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 1, 1916
- **Citations:** 15 Ala. App. 81; 72 So. 556; 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 110
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3232641

## Opinion text

BROWN, J. —
The act approved February 8, 1915, makes it unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to receive or accept for delivery of, or to possess more than a specified quantity of, intoxicating liquors at any one time, or within a specified period. —Acts 1915, p. 44;
Southern Express Co. v. Whittle,
194 Ala. 406 , 69 South. 652 , L. R. A. 1916C, 278. The demurrers taking the point that such acts were not prohibited by law after the 30th of June, 1915, and up until the 23d day of September, 1915, were not well taken, and the rulings of the trial court thereon were correct. The act approved September 17, 1915, authorizing the shipments of liquor under the supervision of the sheriff or other law officer of the state, afforded the defendant no protection for possessing, transporting, or shipping such liquors. By the act, the state, in the exercise of its sovereign authority, directed such shipments under the direct supervision of its officers to prevent evasion of the law of the state. — Acts 1915, p. 632, 633, § 6;
Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. State, ex rel. Attorney General,
197 Ala. 389 , 72 South. 555 .
The rulings of the trial court were in accord with these views, and the judgment must be affirmed.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3232641. Public record. Not legal advice.