Opinion
8 Div. 812.
May 7, 1929. Rehearing Denied June 18, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; O. Kyle, Judge.
Dorley Woods was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquor and possessing a still, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Woods v. State, 220 Ala. 682, 127 So. 246.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
"1. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that it is a well-settled rule of law, that if there are two reasonable constructions which can be given to facts proven, one favorable and the other unfavorable to the defendant, it is the duty of the jury to give that which is favorable, rather than that which is unfavorable, to the defendant, as he is presumed to be innocent when he enters the trial, and that presumption attends him throughout the trial."
"4. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that if you believe from the evidence there is nothing but suspicion to connect the accused with the alleged offense, he would be entitled to an acquittal at your hands.
"5. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, (the) same rules of evidence must apply in prosecution for the violation of prohibition laws as apply in all other cases."
Almon Almon, of Decatur, for appellant.
Counsel argue for error in rulings on the trial, citing Clark v. State, 18 Ala. App. 217, 90 So. 16.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
The state's evidence established the corpus delicti, and upon this question there was no dispute or controversy.
The evidence, without dispute, disclosed that two men were present and engaged in the operation of one of the several stills found and destroyed by the raiding officers upon the occasion complained of. The several state witnesses testified that this appellant was one of the men, and that one Hill was the other.
Defendant strenuously denied being present at the still and insisted he was elsewhere at the time and place testified to by the state's witnesses. He also offered the testimony of other witnesses tending to support him in this insistence. This conflict in the evidence presented the material inquiry upon the trial of the case. The jury decided adversely to defendant, and, in our opinion, were fully justified by the evidence in so doing.
There is no semblance of error in any of the rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence.
Refused charges one and three are identical, and were properly refused. Davis v. State, 19 Ala. App. 94, 96 So. 369; Ex parte Davis, 209 Ala. 367, 96 So. 370.
Refused charges 2 and 6 were the general affirmative charge as to the two counts in the indictment. It has already been stated the defendant was not entitled thereto.
Refused charges 4 and 5 were properly refused. Gay v. State, 21 Ala. App. 270, 271, 108 So. 617.
No error appearing upon the trial of this case, the judgment of conviction appealed from will stand affirmed.
Affirmed.