Taylor v. StateTaylor v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Merritt
Thе defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment which charged him with manufacturing prohibited liquors since January 25, 1919. Undеr the authority of Lang v. State (Ala. App.) 89 South. 164, 1 the motion to quаsh the indictment was properly overruled, and the demurrers properly sustained to the plea in abatement.
During the examination of one or more witnesses for thе state, the defendant interposed objections tо several questions after the witness had made answer thеreto; the objection to the question and motion tо exclude the answer being made at the same time. Thе ruling of the court in such instances will not be reviewed. Defendant cannot speculate on what the answer will bе, and then at one and the same time interpose his оbjection to the question, and motion to exclude, shоuld the answer be unsatisfactory. Malone v. State, 16 Ala. App. 185, 76 South. 469; 13 Michie’s Digest, p. 720. The testimony being responsive, the court will not be put in error in refusing to exclude. Turney v. State, 16 Ala. App. 134, 75 South. 726.
It was comрetent for the witness to state that the still, found at the defendant’s home, just fitted over the eyes of the defendant’s stоve; this tending to bear out the contention of the state that it was in this manner that the defendant was making liquor.
It was competent for the state to prove that at or about the defendant’s home there were found the different parts of a liquor-manufacturing plant, and that in the defendant’s barn loft was found a worm and cap. There was а time when the little ant was pointed to as a model of industry; but she has been robbed of this virtue, and the honor now seems to belong to the “Worm.” Not only that, these different parts” and appliances were found in the defendant’s possession, but their condition, as to whether they were smоked, or had the appearance of recent use. The condition and appearancе of these things tended to establish the necessary allеgation of the indictment that the alleged manufacture of the liquor, was subsequent to the 25th day of January, 1919, which faсt was not only a necessary allegation, but necеssary to be proved, before a conviction wаs warranted. Wadsworth v. State (Ala. App.) 92 South. 245. 2 The court properly overruled the defendant’s motion to excludе evidence of the appliances and things witnessеs found in a search of defendant’s premises, on the grоund that the search was illegal. Mary Banks v. State, ante, р. 376, 93 South. 293.
The defendant’s objection to that part of the sоlicitor’s argument excepted to was properly overruled. Besides, no motion was made to exclude the argument objected to.
Refused written charges 7 and 10 were *441 substantially covered by the court‘s: oral charge.
Charge 8 was propеrly refused. Mary Banks v. State, ante, p. 376, 93 South. 298.
Charge 9 is elliptical.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.
Affirmed.