*1 58 pos- testimony charged rest his to behalf ease on on the offered The that defendant affidavit beverages, liquors testimony “prohibited of the or state. This tended sessed engaged namely, sufficient to show was a that he in This was the. business home brew.” liq- treating proven beings charge, of that the in diseases of human this and it was when brew, any up con- it state. and that This is as far uor found was home as burden rested complete state, and, alcohol, any so on was the offense in the of tes tained the absence timony appellant’s corpus behalf, tending concerned. far delicti was on as the to show duly licensed, etc., that he had been author- of bottles that these The disclosed evidence by jury. ized his conviction the Porter & Co. stump in hole in a brew” were found “home State, 66; State, 84, v. 90, 58 Ala. Bibb 83 Ala. v. yards from defendant’s the house, about 300 woods 711; 3 So. Robinson ex rel. v. State place. is There some on his and not James, 459, 461, 693; Thomp 212 Ala. might 102 So. be inference which an from evidence State, 328, App. 258; 768; son v. 19 Ala. suspected 97 So. knew or that drawn the defendant State, 435, App. Folmar hole, v. 19 Ala. stump So. 97 the in that was the stuff hidden Samples State, 478, App. 480, justify v. 19 Ala. 98 So. no evidence that would but there is 211; McLosky App. 544, any State, v. Ala. 19 98 con- had that defendant the conclusion 706; State, 633, App. So. Jackson v. possession in 19 Ala. found the bottles trol or of over 99 So. 826. stump hole. the general indictment, given appellant The the under which have was The court should tried, regularly by charging charge requested him defendant. with offense the as treating, offering treat, of or to diseases of reversed, judgment cause is and the The beings state, having human in this without remanded. is qualification obtained a certificate of from the and remanded. Reversed 1923, (Code state board of medical examiners' 2839), by governed general § his trial was the that, subject-matter rule “where of the a negative peculiarly averment lies within the knowledge party, of the other the averment true, disproved by is taken as unless State, that party.” 557; Farrall v. 32 Ala. Green (120 577) So. (16th Ed.) p. 154, gen leaf on Evi. § 79. The 753.) (8 Div. v. STATE. SANFORD requested by charge, appel eral affirmative 26, Appeals 1929. Feb. of Alabama. of

Court lant, properly was refused. question, worthy mention, No other of is

presented by record, judgment the and the is affirmed. Affirmed. 475)

(120 So.

CAMPBELL MOTOR CO. v. STANFIELD. (8 637.) Div. Appeals 30, Court of of Alabama. Oct. 1928. Rehearing 20, Denied Nov. 1928. Reversed on 26, Mandate Feb. 1929. Atty. McCall, Gen., Charlie C. for the State. RICE, Appellant J. was convicted of the by

offense denounced section of 5191 the Code 1923, practicing Alabama of of medicine with- out license. trial, his On under an indictment which unchallenged by demurrer, was he elected to testimony behalf, no

introduce in his own but

59 by case, the of as disclosed The facts the' record, to the are car was delivered that said who, driving Gray, for purchaser, it after Young employed time, and it some wrecked Poore, busi- & ness, in the automobile were who repair appears that one to it. It also appellant employ of Jim Bond in the was department charge collection and had of the appellant. That for secondhand cars on being repaired, as afore- while said car was said, by Poore, Young & said went Bond the place Young and of business to & Poore’s repaired question being and the in saw car ap- Florence, Barnett, for & Bradshaw of objection thereto, that stated made no and pellant. repairs paid charges to were when the notify for repair charges never him. The were paid,' sold and the car was advertised and satisfy the under an attachment suit to lien, appellant mechanic’s was and that judgment a notified that and had been rendered the be that car was on a certain to sold day. Appellee sale, purchased car at said the purchase brought appellants and after the against a detinue suit him recover car. to the appear appellants It does not that made ever any pending litigation claim to the car the justice peace in the of the court. Upon appeal, Supreme the former the Court said: “We'think the evidence was sufficient from jury plaintiff’s agent which the could infer that acting scope Bond was within the line and of his authority, and whether or not Bond knowl- had repairs edge time, of these as at the indicated by proof defendant, by presents offered the question pivotal of in fact the ease.” assignments here The several of error import are of and the same in effect attack the validity justice judgment of the the the of of peace court, upon appellee relied, the which being it to that insufficient Florence, appellee. insistence was Roberts, for of James C. legal question in in vest the title car of the appellee. assignments words, In other the upon of error insisted are a attack collateral upon judgment question. in the It a of a is well-settled rule law that juris judgment by having a rendered court person subject-mat diction of the and of the open rule is to attack. The ter not collateral open judgment is is that thus rendered not a judgment attack, though such to collateral may or be declared for reason extrinsic cause & proceedings. Louisville void on direct Tally, 370, 83 Ala. R. v. 203 R. Co. Nashville 114. So. com- this view and lower took The court rulings any of the com- appeal mitted no error in BRIGKEN, is second P. This the J. judgment plained affirmed. of. The is 506, The So. 515. 214 Ala. 108 in this case. against appellant by the Affirmed. action was detinue recovery appellee an automobile of the for Gray, by who appellant Theo one to sold on Reversed and remanded PER OURIAM: appellant mortgage car on a the executed to Stanfield, authority Campbell v. of Motor Co. purchase money, which mort for balance of 663, 120 Ala. 475. 218 So. gage duly recorded. was