Hill v. City of Prattville

• Decision Date: 18 May 1915
• Docket Number: 202
• Citation: 13 Ala.App. 643,69 So. 227
• Parties: HILL v. CITY OF PRATTVILLE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

69 So. 227

13 Ala.App. 643

HILL v. CITY OF PRATTVILLE.

No. 202

Court of Appeals of Alabama

May 18, 1915

On Rehearing, June 3, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; W.W. Pearson, Judge.

J.W Hill was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded, and application for rehearing overruled.

C.E.O. Timmerman, of Prattville, for appellant.

Eugene Ballard, of Prattville, and Thomas & Wiley, of Montgomery for appellee.

PELHAM P.J.

The defendant was charged in one count with a violation of the prohibition laws. The testimony of the state's witness if believed, showed the commission of the offense charged (i.e., a sale of whisky), and the defendant's guilty connection, by direct testimony of a specific act which, within itself, constituted the crime, as well as the defendant's commission thereof, and the admission of evidence of another sale at a different place and time, against the defendant's objection, was improper. Moore v. State, 10 Ala.App. 179, 64 So. 520, and authorities there cited.

When the defendant was being examined as a witness in his own behalf, the city's counsel was permitted to ask, and the defendant was required to testify, against objections seasonably interposed by defendant's counsel, that on a prior occasion to the one in question, when he was charged with selling whisky, he had been tried and convicted by the mayor of the city of Prattville of a similar offense. In this the court was in error. Willingham v. State, 10 Ala.App. 161, 64 So. 544; Hammock v. State, 8 Ala.App. 367, 62 So. 322.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment of conviction must be reversed, and the cause remanded for trial in conformity with the above holdings.

Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

On the original submission of this case, the appellee discussed and invited our rulings upon questions presented by the bill of exceptions, treating the bill set out in the transcript as a legal bill, and the signature of the judge thereto as shown by the transcript as an approval and signing of the bill, as well as an endorsement by him showing the date of presentation. The signature of the judge appears at the conclusion of the bill as set out in the transcript following the statement that same is tendered as the appellant's legal bill of exceptions in the case when signed by the presiding judge, and although the signature is immediately preceded by...