123 So. 292 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1929
Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully distilling alcoholic, etc., liquors.
The testimony on behalf of the state was ample to sustain the verdict of the jury.
Witness Crow, offered on behalf of appellant, having testified that he knew appellant's general reputation in the community where he lived, and that it was good, it was not without the bounds of proper cross-examination of the witness to allow him to be asked if he had "heard about Fred Sparks making whiskey." This is a very different proposition from allowing — it has been held, erroneously (Ex parte Marshall,
But if our views as set forth in the next above paragraph fail to coincide, as they should (Code 1923, § 7318), with the holding of the Supreme Court in Mays v. State,
We have "lettered" the appellant's written "refused" charges, as they appear in the record, from "A" to "H." Likewise we have numbered his written "given" charges from "1" to "9."
Written refused charge "A" is abstract, in so far as this appellant is concerned. It was properly refused, though, anyway, as the court is never required to charge that there is, or is not, evidence of any given fact. Such a charge asserts no proposition of law, and may always be refused without error. Loveman v. B. R. L. P. Co.,
Written "refused" charge "B" is covered in essential substance by written "given" charge 1.
The other written charges have been examined, and the propriety of the refusal of each of them is deemed by us too obvious for comment.
We find nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
