Veal v. State

105 So. 705, 21 Ala. App. 48

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of distilling, etc., and appeals. This case has been here once before. Veal v. State, 19 Ala. App. 168, 95 So. 783.

Charge 4, refused to defendant, was, under the reasoning and rule laid down in Tatum v. State, 20 Ala. App. 24, 100 So. 569, the case he cites, misleading, and properly refused.

It appears that the defendant has had a fair trial, and we can find no prejudicial error in the record.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.