Nussbaumer v. State

Citations

• 54 Fla. 87

Syllabus

<p>1. The incorporation in the motion for new trial, of the construction placed by counsel upon an instruction given by the court instead of copying therein the exact words of the charge, is not a sufficient identification of the instruction so as to serve as an exception thereto.</p> <p>2. In a prosecution for the violation of the local option law, if the evidence prove that the defendant sold wine, even though the evidence fail to prove the wine sold to be intoxicating, that is sufficient so far as proof of its qualities as an intoxicant is concerned.</p> <p>3. In order to establish the fact that the liquor sold is wine, that is, the fermented juice of the grape, the formula under which the liquor is made, its composition and the amount of alcohol it contains as shown by a chemical analysis of-it'may be proved by an expert, or this fact may be established by non-expert testimony, as that the wine sold was intoxicating. The fact that the liquor sold was intoxicating may be shown by any competent evidence, whether direct or circumstantial.</p> <p>4. - Evidence held sufficient to carry -to the jury the question. whether the liquor sold by defendant was wipe.</p>