Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 266 |
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 178,114 So. 890 |
| Parties | ROBERTS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; R.B. Carr, Judge.
Ellis Roberts and others were convicted of manufacturing whisky and they appeal. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Roberts et al. v. State, 114 So. 891.
Hugh Walker, of Anniston, for appellants.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
According to the testimony of the state's witness, these three defendants were apprehended at about 8:30 a.m. while engaged in the manufacture of whisky. There were two stills at the place where the parties were found, only one of which was a complete still and in operation, but both of them were in a furnace and both were full of beer. The still not in operation only lacked the parts necessary, a cap, thumper worm, and flake-stand. The stills were of the same capacity and therefore these parts were interchangeable, and the jury might draw the inference that the apparatus was one and the same outfit. That is, an outfit with two pots from which there was to be run alternately whisky through one cap, thumper, worm, and flake-stand. There was only the one possession charged and only one possession proven. A full description of every article at the place relating to the possession of the apparatus or the manufacture of whisky was relevant.
The record shows that defendants' counsel asked the witness Roberts: "I will ask you, based on that state of facts and from tasting that beer, whether or not that beer had alcohol in it?" The record then shows that defendant objected to this question and moved to exclude the answer. This may have been an error in writing the bill of exceptions, but as to this we have no way of knowing. Of course, the defendant will not be allowed to ask a question and then by objecting thereto put the court in error.
There were three men at the still and but three when the officers arrived. One of the officers testified he could see their heads and that one of them said: "Go up on the hill and set down and keep your damn eyes open." Ellis Roberts one of the three, went up the hill as ordered. The three parties being jointly engaged at the time in the commission of a felony, it would make no difference which one of the three made the remark; all would be bound by it, and if Ellis responded by going up the hill,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, 5 Div. 357
...Ganus v. State, supra; Caraway v. State, 20 Ala.App. 362, 101 So. 912; Whigham v. State, 20 Ala.App. 129, 101 So. 98; Roberts v. State, 22 Ala.App. 178, 114 So. 890. The evidence which we have delineated clearly demonstrates our view that the defendant was not due the general affirmative ch......
- Hyche v. State
-
Vandiver v. State
...at the still site, Allen v. State, 25 Ala.App. 181, 142 So. 777; Arrington v. State, 24 Ala.App. 233, 133 So. 592; Roberts v. State, 22 Ala.App. 178, 114 So. 890, and it was not error to allow the State's witness to testify as to their observation of the still and the condition of the mash ......
-
In Re Advisory Opinion To Governor, in Re
... ... the court and the creation of the office of clerk of such ... [94 ... Fla. 986] State of Florida, Executive Department ... Tallahassee, ... November 19, 1927 ... To the ... Honorable Chief Justice and Justices ... ...