Case ID: ala-app_22/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(119 So. 596)
    RITZ v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
    (6 Div. 393.)
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 15, 1929.
    Jacobs & Carmack, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    W. J. Wynn and Ralph E. Parker, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
   RICE, J.

Appellant, under the terms of an ordinance of the city of Birmingham, was convicted of the offense of having in his possession a quantity of whisky. There was no demurrer to the complaint under which he was tried, and' the only questions for our consideration are presented by a few rulings of the trial court on the taking of testimony, the action of the court in refusing to grant a continuance of the case, when it was called for trial, and the refusal, by the court, to give at appellant’s request the general affirmative charge in his favor.

All the questions are simple. There being positive evidence, on behalf of the state, of the finding of some whisky (a very small quantity, to be-sure, less than a quart) in the home of defendant, and that he told the officers finding it that it was his, of course the general affirmative charge was properly denied him.

No abuse of the trial court’s discretion appears in his action in refusing to continue the case.

It was proper to allow the witnesses to describe, as a part of the res gestee of the transaction, the condition of the rooms where the liquor was found; that is, that there were empty bottles, smelling as though they had recently contained whisky, in one of them.

We have searched the record, but find no prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.