34 So. 2d 860 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1948
In the court below the appellant was convicted of the illegal possession of prohibited liquor.
The only evidence introduced was that in behalf of the State. The sheriff and his deputy found twelve pints of prohibited whiskey hidden up over a window in the defendant's home. The liquor was concealed by the placement of a board. The house was occupied by the accused and his wife. The former was not at home at the time.
There are no questions presented for our review which arose during the introduction of the testimony.
The exceptions to portions of the oral charge of the court are not sufficiently specific to invite our consideration. Gipson v. State,
Refused written instruction number 2 was substantially covered by the oral charge. Title 7, Sec. 273, Code 1940; Kelley v. State,
Brief of appellant's counsel is devoted entirely to the insistence that the accused was due the general affirmative charge.
The rules relating to this inquiry have been announced many times in opinions of our appellate courts. Justice Thomas, writing for the Supreme Court, in McMillan v. Aiken et al.,
Each case contains facts in some aspects different from those in any other case. It is very unusual to find any two causes in exact factual counterpart.
Appellant cites Talbot v. State,
We do not entertain any doubt of the correctness of the judgment of the court below in submitting the case to the jury and refusing the general affirmative charge.
The Assistant Attorney General cites and quotes from Emerson v. State,
We have the original record in the Emerson case before us. The whiskey *425 was found in a cabin on the premises of the defendant about 50 or 75 feet from his place of business, and the beer was located in a hole in the ground near by. Some person there, apparently in charge, sold the officer a half pint of whiskey. The defendant was not present.
On the basis of this proof this court held that the affirmative charge was not due the accused.
The conclusions reached are clearly persuasive and indicative of the correctness of our views in the case at bar. See also, Bridgeforth v. State,
The judgment of the court below is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.