Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(92 South. 509)
    ALLEN v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 876.)
    
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 31, 1922.
    Rehearing Denied March 7, 1922.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>1169(2) — Error in asking if Witness ever got whisky from defendant cured by evidence of time he got it..
    In a prosecution for violation of the prohibition law, error in permitting a solicitor to ask a witness if the witness ever got any whisky from defendant was cured by proof from the same Vitness that the getting of the whisky was within the time, covered by the indictment.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;1170,1/3(2)— Error in sustaining question as to credibility of state’s witness rendered harmless by answer of witness! that he did not know.
    In a prosecution for violation of the prohibition law, error of the trial court in sustaining the solicitor’s question as to the character of a state’s witness for truth and veracity was rendered harmless by the statement of the witness that he did not know the general character of the witness for truth and veracity.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Blount County; W. J. Martin, Judge.
    Henry Allen was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Defendant was indicted and convicted by the court, without a jury on a charge of violating the prohibition law, and from the judgment he appeals.
    Ward, Nash & Eendley, of Oneonta, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the errors assigned, but without citation of authority.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
    
      
      Certiorari denied 207 Ala. 709, 92 South. 919.
    
   SAMFORD, J.

The error of the court in permitting the solicitor to, ask a witness if he ever got any whisky from defendant was immediately cured by proof from the same witness that the getting of the whisky was within the 'time covered by the indictment, and the error of the court in sustaining the solicitor’s question as to the character of state’s witness Malone for truth and veracity was rendered harmless by the answer of, the witness to the question, which appears to have been answered, and not excluded, that he did not know Malone’s general character for truth and veracity.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <§=^For other oases see same tonic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests .and Indexes