Battles v. State

• Decision Date: 18 April 1922
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 736. [*]
• Citation: 18 Ala.App. 475,93 So. 64
• Parties: BATTLES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

93 So. 64

18 Ala.App. 475

BATTLES v. STATE.

7 Div. 736. ^[*]

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 18, 1922

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O. A. Steele, Judge.

Jeff Battles was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

p>Page James A. Embry, of Ashville, for appellant.

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

BRICKEN P.J.

The undisputed testimony in this case, as shown by the record discloses the fact that the sheriff of the county accompanied by several others, located a still in close proximity to the dwelling house of Zeib Battles, the father of defendant (appellant here), and that the defendant made his home there with his father. At the still, which was a complete one ready for operation, there were also several barrels-some filled with beer, some empty, but these showed signs of having recently been emptied. Near the home of defendant's father these officers also found about nine gallons of whisky in a keg, which was hidden in the briers and covered with freshly broken pine brush. When the still was located, about daylight, after an all-night search by the officers, they (the officers) secreted themselves nearby and waited until the defendant came to the still. The testimony of the state tended to show that, about half an hour after sunrise, the hidden officers saw defendant and his brother Quitman Battles, coming to the still from Zeib Battles' house; that defendant had a glass jug in each hand, came up to the still, set them down, examined the beer in the barrels, and picked up a long-handled shovel lying near, and commenced raking down and cleaning out from under the still which was warm; that at this juncture he was ordered to halt, and was then and there arrested; that Quitman Battles picked up a lot of wood and started to the still, but did not get there, for when he saw the officers he dropped the wood and ran. There was other testimony, incriminating in its nature, offered by the state, tending to connect this defendant with the commission of the offense charged.

The defendant, while admitting that he went to the still at the time in question, denied that his brother Quitman was with him, as testified to by the state officers. He also denied having the glass jugs in his hands, and that he was cleaning out from under the still at the time he was arrested. He strenuously denied that he had anything to do with the operating of the still, and that he did not make or help to make the whisky found by the officers near his father's house, and contended he knew nothing about it. He testified in substance that he went to the still on the morning in question, but did not know it was there until he walked up on it; that he was down there alone, for the purpose of looking at some land, with a view to cultivating it that year; that he had but two days before returned from the army to his home, and he offered evidence tending to show his whereabouts and actions since he returned home, insisting that this testimony, which was in the nature of an alibi, rendered it impossible for him to have committed the offense complained of in the indictment.

It will thus be seen that these conflicts in the testimony presented a question for the determination of the jury, and therefore there was no error in refusing special charge 1, which was the affirmative charge, requested by defendant.

...