Court Opinion

ID: 9825338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:40:28.129511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:43.178544
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is urged upon application for rehearing that:
“The affirmance of the judgment of conviction from which the appeal was taken is erroneous, for that appellant was convicted of the offense of ‘distilling’ and not of possessing a still, and there was no evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense of distilling since it did not appear that any liquor was in fact made at any time and place for which appellant was prosecuted.”
 As stated in the opinion, there were two counts in the indictment, and the court gave the affirmative charge, with hypothesis, for defendant as to count 1. However, the jury returned a general verdict; to wit, “We, the jury find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment.” In entering the judgment it was made to read: “It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that the defendant is guilty of distilling as charged in the indictment.” This judgment was regular on its face, and, while it is apparent that the use df the term “distilling” was inapt and most likely a mere misprision upon the part of the clerk, it responds to the verdict of the jury and is not void. The verdict of the jury is referable to each count of the indictment, and if injury to the substantial rights of the defendant is occasioned *436by the refusal of the jury to follow the written instructions of the court, the proper course would be to invite the court’s rulings to remedy the wrong thus complained of.. Therefore such merit as might have been contained in the insistence of appellant iri this connection should have been tested by a motion for a new trial in the court below. No such motion was made, and as the matter is here presented we are not authorized to declare and hold that reversible error is apparent.
Application overruled.