Catrett v. State
97 So. 124, 19 Ala. App. 311, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 167
Opinion
The only exception reserved on the trial was to the court’s ruling in permitting the state’s witness Eloyd to testify that the beer found at the still was the “kind of beer of which they make rum.” This was a fact descriptive of the beer found at the still being operated, and was relevant.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Catrett v. State, 97 So. 124, 19 Ala. App. 311, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 167 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).
97 So. 124 (Catrett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Bryant v. State
33 So. 2d 402 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
Copeland v. State
173 So. 407 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1937)