Case ID: ala-app_9/html/0070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WALKEB, P. J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McWhorter v. The State.
    
      Violating Prohibition Law.
    
    (Decided January 13, 1914.
    64 South. 158.)
    1. Evidence; Diagram. — Where a witness gave some description of defendant's store and of a stairway therein, where he testified to finding some liquor, a diagram drawn by him of the place was properly admitted in evidence in connection with his other evidence.
    2. Chai-ge of Court; Directing Verdict.-Where the evidence is in conflict on a material matter, the court cannot properly direct the verdict.
    Appeal from Lowndes Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. A. E. Gamble.
    Terrell McWhorter was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The charge refused to defendant referred to in the opinion is the affirmative charge.
    R. L. Goldsmiti-i, for appellant.
    Counsel discusses errors insisted on in the admission of evidence, and the-refusal to give the affirmative charge for defendant, but without citation of authority.
    B. C. BitiGKELti, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    There being no objection as to the correctness of the diagram, it is presumed to be correct. — Burton v. State, 115 Ala. 1; Jarvis v. State, 138 Ala. 17. In connection with the evidence of the witness, the diagram was admissible.-— Mann v. State, 131 Ala. 1; A. G. S. -v. Johnson, 128 Ala. 295.
   WALKEB, P. J. —

A Avitness for the state, after giving some description of the defendant’s store and of a stairway therein, and testifying as to the finding of some beer and whisky, in response to a request of the solicitor to do so, dreAV a rough sketch or diagram of the store. There was no impropriety in the admission in evidence of this diagram in connection with the testimony of the Avitness in reference to the place in question. — Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Johnston, 128 Ala. 283, 29 South. 771; Jarvis v. State, 138 Ala. 17, 34 South. 1025.

Under the conflicting evidence adduced, the defendant was not entitled to require the court to give the written charge requested in his behalf.

Affirmed.