Feagin v. City of Andalusia

• Decision Date: 02 February 1915
• Docket Number: 278
• Citation: 67 So. 630,12 Ala.App. 611
• Parties: FEAGIN v. CITY OF ANDALUSIA.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

67 So. 630

12 Ala.App. 611

FEAGIN v. CITY OF ANDALUSIA.

No. 278

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 2, 1915

Appeal from City Court of Andalusia; Ed T. Albritton, Judge.

Tim Feagin was convicted in the city court for a violation of an ordinance of the City of Andalusia, on a trial on appeal from a conviction in the recorder's court of the city, and he appeals. Affirmed.

A.L. Rankin, of Andalusia, for appellant.

PELHAM P.J.

The defendant was subject to the punishment authorized by law or as provided by ordinance, upon his conviction on appeal from the recorder's court in a trial de novo in the law and equity court. Code, § 1217. Punishment by fine or imprisonment, or hard labor on the streets of the city, is authorized to be imposed upon conviction on a trial de novo by the section of the Code cited (Cooper v Gadsden, 10 Ala.App. 609, 65 So. 715; Clark v Uniontown, 4 Ala.App. 264, 58 So. 725), and there is no merit in the contention that fixing a fine on the defendant was a necessary prerequisite to a valid judgment imposing a sentence of hard labor in conformity with the verdict of the jury.

The ordinance was properly allowed in evidence. It is not necessary to the validity of the ordinance that the mayor should vote on it. Clark v. City of Uniontown, 4 Ala.App. 264, 58 So. 725.

There was no error in permitting the state's witness to testify that he smelled and tasted the beverage and that it was alcohol. It is a matter commonly known as a physical fact that by the use of the senses of smell and taste one can acquire the knowledge that the limpid, mobile, colorless liquid with a hot and pungent taste and a slight, though distinctive, spirituous scent, is the liquid known as alcohol. Chemical analysis, or a knowledge of the science of chemistry, is not necessary to enable one to distinguish alchohol by the senses of smell and taste.

The contention of the defendant's counsel that it is not shown that the sale of the prohibited beverage took place within 12 months before the affidavit charging the defendant with having committed the offense is not well founded. The affidavit bears date of April 21, 1913, on which date there was a trial and conviction in the recorder's court, and on the trial de novo had in the year 1914, the state's witness testified that the sale took place "during last year" (the year of 1913).

The defendant was charged with the violation of an ordinance of the city...