Cox v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cox v. State

112 So. 898, 22 Ala. App. 102, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 67

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 1927

Docket4 Div. 287.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 So. 898 (Cox v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. State, 112 So. 898, 22 Ala. App. 102, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 67 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

There was evidence tending to prove the allegations as charged in each count of the indictment. This applies to manufacture of rum, possession of the still, and the venue. The foregoing being true, charges 1A, IB, 6, 7, 12, and 13 were properly refused.

Refused charge 5 undertakes to fix the venue at a point one-fourth of a mile within Covington county.

Refused charges 8, 15, and 20 are not based upon a consideration of all the evidence.

Refused charge 11 at one time was held to be good, but is now condemned as being a bad charge. McCarty v. State, ante, p. 62, 112 So. 184.

Refused charge 21 is covered by the court’s oral charge, and refused charge 23 is an argument.

The fee fixed by section 4659 of the Code of 1923, is a fact as well known to the jury as to a witness testifying. On cross-examination of the sheriff, it would be competent to inquire if he claimed the fee, and also if he knew that such a fee is provided by law, But, where he answers.that he does not claim the fee, the action of the court in sustaining an objection to the question, “You know that thdre is a $50 fee that goes to the party that gets a conviction in this case, don’t you?” is without prejudicial error.

More than a year after defendant is charged with having manufactured whisky, the sheriff, who was one of the principal state’s witnesses, went with John Matthews to a point on a branch and pointed out to Matthews a place where the sheriff said the still had been located. TMs was all the information Matthews had as to the location of the still. Matthews was then permitted, over the objection and exception of defendant, to testify that the still was located 40 or 45 yards from the county line. The whole testimony of this witness relating to the location of the still was hearsay and as such should have been ex- *104 eluded. One of the controverted facts in the case was the location of this still, as to which witness must testify to facts within his own knowledge.

Eor the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI