Smith v. State

180 So. 127, 28 Ala. App. 147, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 90

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully distilling alcoholic liquor — ' whisky.

It is just “another of those cases.” We see nothing worthy of discussion.

But appellant’s counsel strenuously argue that the judgment should be reversed because — one of appellant’s witnesses bearing the name Spain — the solicitor, in his closing argument to the jury used this language: “That name Spain is a very familiar name to me.” '

The court, on motion, excluded-the quoted statement from the jury; which, we think, and hold, was even more than appellant could rightfully ask. Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171. Certainly, we think appellant’s motion to “declare a mistrial” was overruled without error.

There appears, nowhere, any erroneous ruling or action by the court, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.