Hill v. StateHill v. State
Thе first count of the indictment charged that “Elbert Hill did distill, make or manufacture prohibited liquors or beverages,” and the indiсtment after the second count, which was charged оut by the court, concluded, “Against the peace аnd dignity of the state of Alabama.”
The indictment was subject tо demurrer, but is not void. In the absence of a demurrer chаllenging its sufficiency, the count will support a conviction. McGuire v. State,
The defendant objected to being put upon trial in the city hall in Decatur, Ala., on the ground that such was not the place designated by law for holding the sessions of the circuit court. We assume that this exceрtion is abandoned, as no insistence regarding it is made in briеf and on the face of the record there is nothing tо substantiate the alleged facts.
In describing the place where defendant is charged with having manufactured whisky, it was competent for the witness to testify that there werе six big stills there, and to state any other fact or facts tending to prove that they were all a part of onе plant at which defendant was working and making whisky.
Erom the faсts in evidence the jury was justified in finding that the six stills testified about werе all a part of the same outfit to be used in the unlawful mаnufacture of whisky and that the defendant was in possessiоn of the outfit, that he did manufacture whisky, or that he was an aider or abettor both as to the manufacture and the possession. The foregoing being the case, it was immaterial which one of the boilers defendant happened to be using at the time of the raid. No election was required. Of course, if there had been six different and complete outfits, there would be six separate аnd distinct crimes and a different question might be presented. But а person may own, possess, or operate an outfit having one or more units. In that event he is indicted for the whole, and not separately on each unit. The law would not permit such injustice.
The facts in the case justifiеd the court in refusing the general charge as to eаch count.
The objection of defendant to the question propounded by the solicitor to the witness Willoughby, “When you were up there before, you figured the beer wаs ready to run on the morning you got back?” was not made until after the witness bad answered, and the court overruled thе objection for that reason. The objection сame too late. ■
The other exceptions рresented are without merit. While it is the law that the mere рresence ,of a person at a still is not sufficient to convict, a presence at a still off in the woods and in an isolated place is ground for grave suspiсion, and it takes but little additional evidence to makе it a jury question.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.