Case ID: ala-app_13/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BROWN, J.-", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kimbrough v. The State.
    
      Violating Prohibition Law.
    
    (Decided May 13, 1915.
    68 South. 673.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors; Evidence. — Where the witness testified that L. and others gave him money with which to buy whisky, and that he purchased the whisky from defendant, the testimony of L. that he and the others gave the witness the money, and sent him for the whisky, was admissible as corroborative of the testimony of the witness.
    2. Charge of Court; Misleading. — An instruction that the jury were authorized to acquit under the evidence was properly refused as misleading, and for other reasons.
    Appeal from Winston County Court.
    Heard before Hon. John S. Curtis.
    Henry Kimbrough was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Charge 2 is as follows: I charge you that, under the evidence in this case, you are authorized to acquit defendant.
    Travis Williams, for appellant.
    W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and W. H. Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   BROWN, J.-

In connection with the testimony of the witness Wheeler that Albert Long and others gave him money to buy whisky with, and that he (Wheeler) went to the house of the defendant and purchased whisky from defendant, it Avas competent to show by Long that he and the others mentioned gave Wheeler the money and sent him after the whisky. This evidence tended to corroborate the testimony of Wheeler.—Spigener v. State, 11 Ala. App. 296, 66 South. 896.

Charge 2 states no principle of law and hypothesizes no facts as a predicate for the instruction. It also possesses a tendency to mislead the jury to the conclusion that it is their duty to acquit the defendant.-

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

Affirmed.