Case ID: ala-app_19/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFOpD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(97 South. 609)
    (4 Div. 745.)
    HAMITER v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    July 10, 1923.
    Rehearing Dismissed Oct. 2, 1923.)
    Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(19) — Evidence held to justify conviction of manufacturing whis-ky and possessing a still.
    Under an indictment charging both manufacturing whisky and possessing a still, evidence that defendant possessed part of a still, filled with mash ready to be distilled, that it had been used and refilled, and that there was whis-ky in his possession made from the still, warranted a verdidt of guilty.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
    , Mai I-Iamit'er was convicted of possessing a still, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    ’ Guy W. Winn, of Clayton, for appellant.
    :. Counsel argues for error in exceptions reserved, but without citing authorities.
    ■ Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   SAMFOpD, J.

The evidence for the' state tended to prove that defendant' had in his possession a part of a still; that it was a can used, for the boiler; that it was filled with mash ready to be distilled; that it had been used and refilled; that there was whisky in defendant’s possession at the time of the kind and character usually made from the kind of mash in the can. The indictment charged both manufacturing whis-ky and possessing a still. Responding to the charges the evidence offered was relevant and was sufficient upon which the jury was warranted in finding a judgment of guilty.

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

Affirmed!