Case ID: ala-app_22/html/0500-01.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

(117 So. 487)
    McGEE v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 673.)
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 12, 1928.
    James C. Roberts, of Plorence, for appellant.
    Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief did not reach the Reporter.
   RICE, J.

[1] This court does not favor reversals of the judgments of the»nisi prius courts on technical rulings which work no, injury to the appellants.- However, orderly procedure and regulated methods, in the indictment, trial, and conviction or acquittal of those charged with crime, must-be preserved —otherwise, we would drift into chaos, thence on into- anarchy.

In this case the appellant was regularly charged by indictment only with the offense of having in his possession a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, or malted liquors, etc., contrary to law, etc. He was duly put upon trial and convicted by the jury, their Verdict being that he “was guilty as charged in the indictment.” Whereupon he was adjudged by the court to be “guilty of manufacturing liquor as charged in the indictment.” , Prom this judgment he appeals to- this court.

Manifestly and obviously,' the judgment of conviction is' not based upon or supported by the verdict of guilt returned, and of consequence the same must be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded.