Case ID: ala-app_24/html/0668-06.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(136 So. 926)
    Ocie MUNROE v. STATE.
    5 Div. 824.
    Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    March 3, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied Aug. 4, 1931.
    Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

This case was fairly tried before a jury. The questions raised on the admission of testimony are elementary and simple. The court committed no error in any of its rulings which would injurioasly affect defendant's case.

Just a simple charge: A whisky still located on defendant’s premises near his house. His wife engaged with a man in making whisky. The defendant in about 75 yards of the still plowing. Testimony that, he knew about the still and what was going on. He bought the sugar and procured the meal to make the beer and employed the man to make the whisky. It was a jury question, and we find no prejudicial error.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.