Court Opinion

ID: 9824850
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:33:33.395333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:10.138841
License: Public Domain

SAMFORD, J.
Defendant was convicted under an indictment in two counts charging separately manufacturing whisky and possessing a still. There was a general verdict of guilt and judgment thereon, from which defendant appeals.
*464The evidence as to the material issues was in conflict. That for the state being sufficient to sustain a conviction under either count in the indictment. The general eharge was therefore properly refused.
The court perhaps erred in permitting the state to prove what Charlie, the other party caught at the still, said to the officers after the arrest and while áll of the parties, including defendant, were walking along the road. The statement, even if heard by defendant, was not such as to call for -a denial by him. But' the statement in no way involved the defendant nor reflected on him in the least. The error was without injury.
The court in his oral charge and in written' . charges given at the request of defendant covered every phase of the law of the case when correctly stated in refused charges.
The other exceptions are without merit. We have read the record. The defendant has had a fair trial, without prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.