The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-06-27
opinion by Haralson, J,
MCCORMACK V. THE STATE.

MCORMACk V. THE 0IA1Gs
 Prosecution for selling liquor to per-
 son of known incorporate habits--Ap- peal from the County" Court, of Nor gan.
 l. Selling liquor to person of known in-
 temperate habits; constituents of of fense; burden of proof--To authorize a conviction under a prosecution for seiing
 liouor to a person of known incorporate habits. it is necessary to show D that
 the defendant sold spirituous. unous or malt liquors to the person named; 'O that such person was of incorporate
 hobIts. and ls) that the defendant had knowledge of his incorporate habits, ana the burden of establishing each and all of these facts is upon the State. 2, Same: proof of known incorporate habits; admissibility of evidenee.-For the purpose of showing that the defend- ant had knowledge of the incorporate habits of the person to- whom ne IS
 charged with having sold splrituous Nauor, it is competent for the State to
 prove the contents of paper in the de- fendaht's possession which was written
 him by the wife of the person of known incorporate habits. in which he told the defendant of such habits, and it Is not necessary as a condition precedent to the admission in evidence of such testimony, that the State should have demanded of the defendant the production of the let ter.
 ]. Same; same; same.-For the purpose of showing that tho defendant had knowl- edge of the known incorporate habits of tho person te whom he is charged with having sold spirituous liquors. it is com petent for the brother of said person to whom the liquor was alleged to have been sold, to testify that he had told the all an rryhf t,s | brother, and further for the State to prove bv uher witnesses, that said per- son was frequently within twelve months | nrecedIne the trial under the influence l Of intaxicants; ani likewise the testimony 1 of slryh Iersons brother that he had been | A man of incorporate habits for six years is admissible in evidence. 1. Witness; competent to show interest as affecting edibllity.-The interest of | the witnesa in a cause in which he testi- i hes, may always be shown as ahsPting l the credibility of his testimony; and in ! il prosecution for the sale of liquor to a | uerson of known incorporate habits, | where the employer of the defendant tes- | tifes to facts which exoner1te the de- | fendant, 1t is competent for the State to ask such witness if there was not then bending against him a prosecution for | the same offense.
 5 Charge of court to jury; when defend- ant can not complain.-The defendant cannot complain of a portion of the oral charge of the court which is too favor able to sim, in that 1t exacts too high a
 degret of proof.
 6 Abetract charges are properly re- fused.
 7SaltlnR llouor to person of known in-
 tem;,eraee, habits; charge of court.--In a
 p-oseC utioI for selling spirituous liquors l to A person of known incorporate hab- 1 it's. where the State elects to prosecute l for a sale alleged to have been made on August [, and there was evidence on | the part of the defendont tending to show | that on August he was returning off, cer at the general election and did not | finish the count until 10 o'clock on August | !. when he went to the saloon where the sale was alleged to have been made and remained there between fifteen and thIr- ty minutes and then went home and slept until o'clock in the evening. but there was positive evidence on the part of the State that the defendant sold whiskey to | A designated person on August '. a charge | is erroneous and properly refused which | instruuts the jury that "lf you believe from the evidence that defendant was a | returning officer of the election on Au- | eust T. and went to the Palace Saloon and Between fifteen and thirty minutes went | to Patton's or Lands and then went home and slept until o'clock that even ing. your verdict should be for the de- | fendant.' 1 Affirmed.
 | Opinion by Tyson. J.