Wood v. State, 7 Div. 409.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1939
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 409.
• Citation: Wood v. State, 28 Ala.App. 464, 187 So. 250 (Ala. App. 1939)
• Parties: WOOD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

187 So. 250

28 Ala.App. 464

WOOD v. STATE.

7 Div. 409.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

February 7, 1939

Rehearing Denied March 7, 1939.

Appeal from Circuit Court, DeKalb County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.

Carl Wood was convicted of possessing a still unlawfully, and of distilling prohibited liquors, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

J. A Johnson, of Fort Payne, for appellant.

Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Silas C Garrett, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN Presiding Judge.

The indictment in this case was preferred by a Grand Jury at the August Term 1932 of the circuit court of DeKalb County.

From the record it is ascertained that this appellant was not put to trial upon said indictment until the 21st day of February 1938; or about six years after the indictment was found and returned into open court. Nothing appears in the record in explanation of this delay. He and two others, not on trial in this case, were charged with the offense of unlawfully possessing a still to be used for the purpose of making or manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages; and also charged with the offense of distilling, making or manufacturing alcoholic, spirituous, malted or mixed liquors a part of which was alcohol. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment, whereupon the court adjudged the defendant guilty and sentenced him to serve an indeterminate term of imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than four years and not more than five years.

The corpus delicti was proven without dispute. There was no conflict in the testimony, to the effect that upon the occasion in question, the "raiding" officers found a still in full operation, with several gallons of whiskey in containers, and also three or four barrels of beer, at the still place; and further, that the three men named in the indictment were all present at the still. This appellant admitted his presence, but denied that he took any part in the operation of the still and insisted he had no interest in it and that he had arrived there but a few minutes before the officers came. There was evidence by two or three witnesses that this appellant was punching upon the fire in the furnace, and one witness testified that the three named men were there, and, "all of them were working at the still."

The evidence as to this appellant assisting in the work round and about the still was in sharp conflict, rendering therefore the affirmative charge requested, inapt. The evidence presented questions for the jury to decide and determine, and...