Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating our laws known as "Prohibition Laws" by illegally having in his possession *Page 393 beer containing more than the permissible per cent of alcohol.
The State's testimony was undisputed; and tended to make out a clear case of guilt against the defendant (appellant) — i. e., guilt of the offense charged.
Appellant introduced testimony tending to show that he bore a good character; but this court has ruled that such testimony, alone, is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. Witt v. State,
There was hence no error in the trial court's giving to the jury the requested general affirmative charge with hypothesis to find in favor of the State — though such practice is dangerous.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.