Case ID: ala-app_17/html/0543-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "■BRICKEN, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(86 South. 117)
    McLEAN v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 624.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 29, 1920.)
    Criminal law <©=>1159(3) — Question of Defendant’s Guilt for Jury on Conflicting Evidence.
    * Where the evidence was in conflict, the only-question presented on defendant’s appeal from conviction of distilling, manufacturing, or making alcoholic liquor in violation of the Weakley Bone Dry Law, § 15, the refusal of the general affirmative charge for defendant, must fail.
    <£s=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
    Oscar McLean was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for t’he State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   ■BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment, charged the defendant with a violation of the act known as the “Weakley Bone Dry Law,” and' was properly framed under section 15 of said act. Acts 1919, p. 16, § 15. In short, the defendant was indicted and convicted of distilling, making, or manufacturing alcoholic-liquor.

The evidence was in conflict; therefore the only question presented upon this appeal, the refusal of ,the general affirmative charge for defendant, must fail, as the defendant was clearly not entitled to this charge.

The record is entirely free from all error. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.