109 So. 891 | Ala. Ct. App. | 1926
The two exceptions reserved by the defendant to the rulings of the court are examined and found to be without merit.
As contended by appellant, refused charges D and 7 were several times held to be good and their refusal reversible error, but, since the case of Edwards v. State,
Refused charge 9 was held in Fealy v. City of Birmingham,
Charge 11 was invasive of the province of the jury. Presence at a still which is in operation, coupled with the unexplained flight of defendant, may be sufficient upon which the jury can base a verdict of guilt.
Refused charge 18 was abstract.
No exception appears to the explanation of given charge 12, and hence there is nothing here for review.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.