Case ID: ala-app_22/html/0321-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMPORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(115 So. 385)
    CLONTZ v. STATE.
    (7 Div. 462.)
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 7, 1928.
    Duke Logan, of Anniston, for appellant.
    Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No briefs reached the Reporter.
   SAMPORD, J.

We have read this entire record, ana, while there are- two technical errors in the rulings of the court, in that the state was permitted to prove that "the name of defendant had been included in a list of 'probable violators of the prohibition law handed witness by the sheriff 'of the county, and whom witness, as a law enforcement officer, was instructed to investigate, such errors are not sufficient to constitute reversible error. After a careful consideration of the whole record, we are convinced that the defendant had a fair trial. Let the judgment be affirmed. .

Affirmed.