McBRIDE v. STATE

(95 South. 920) (8 Div. 967.) McBRIDE v. STATE. (Court of Appeals of Alabama. April 10, 1923.) Criminal law i&wkey;1144(13) — Where bill of ex-' ceplions does not aver that it contains all the evidence, sufficient evidence presumed. Where a bill of exceptions fails to state that it contains all of the evidence, the appellate court must presume that there was other and sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge. Harvey McBride was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and he appeals. Affirmed. Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant. / Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. [MAJORITY — SAMPORD, J.] SAMPORD, J. Defendant was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and, from the judgment overruling his motion for new trial, he appeals.- . The bill of exceptions fails to state that it contains all of the evidence, and, in.the absence of this statement, we must presume there was other and sufficient evidence to support the verdict. There is no error in the record, and the judgment' is dffirmed. Affirmed.