Baker v. State

• Decision Date: 16 May 1922
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 772.
• Citation: 93 So. 270,18 Ala.App. 510
• Parties: BAKER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

93 So. 270

18 Ala.App. 510

BAKER v. STATE.

4 Div. 772.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 16, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Jim Baker was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Mulkey & Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MERRITT J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment which charged that he did distill, make, or manufacture alcoholic or spirituous liquor subsequent to the 25th day of January 1919.

The demurrers to the plea in abatement were properly sustained. Wesley Powell v. State (Ala. App.) 90 So. 138.

The demurrers to the indictment were properly overruled. Under section 7139 of the Code it was not necessary to allege the exact date on which the offense was committed. See, also cases of Dewey Laminack v. State (Ala. App.) 92 So 502, and George Laminack et al. v. State (Ala. App.) 92 So. 505.

it is not necessary that an indictment be signed by the solicitor. Boyett v. State, 8 Ala. App. 93, 62 So. 984; Brigman v. State, 8 Ala. App. 400, 62 So. 980; Holt v. State, 16 Ala. App. 399, 78 So. 315.

Defendant was found at a still. The defendant sought to show that he had been to his father's home in Florida, returned at nighttime, had a conversation with his wife, after which he went to the still, the record indicating that the defendant sought to show that one Johnson had left a message at defendant's home for defendant to come to the still, and that he went to the still in response to such request, and that the still was the property of Johnson, and that defendant was not interested in it.

Pursuing this theory, the defendant sought to show by his witnesses what he said when he left home about where he was going, what he was going for, what time he left, the conditions under which he left, that after his conversation with his wife he said that he was going to the still; whether he and his wife had a conversation about said Johnson; if the witnesses knew anything about Johnson having any connection with a still prior to the time defendant was found at it; and whether Johnson was seen hauling cane beer or skimmings of cane at any time in the direction of the still; what conversation was had between defendant and Johnson after defendant reached the still; whether the defendant found out in conversation with his wife where the still...