LITTLE v. STATE

(106 So. 69) LITTLE v. STATE. (4 Div. 80.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. Aug. 4, 1925. Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1925.) Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;236(I) — Evidence held sufficient to support conviction of violation of prohibition law. In liquor prosecution, evidence that accused had broken the fruit jar of liquor about time he was apprehended held sufficient to sustain conviction of violation of prohibition law, even though accused claimed to have found jar and broken it after failing to get the cap off. Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; W. L. Parks, Judge. J. A. Little ivas convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals. Affirmed. Baldwin & Murphy, of Andalusia, for appellant. Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State. [MAJORITY — BRIOKEN, P. J.] BRIOKEN, P. J. From a judgment, of conviction for violating the prohibition iaw of the state, defendant appealed. There was no dispute in the evidence to the effect that this appellant had in his hands a fruit jar of prohibited liquor, and that he broke it upon a stump about the time the state witnesses were about to apprehend him. He testified that he had just found the jar of liquor and that he tried to get the rusted cap off; failing in this, he broke the jar. The evidence on this question was in direct conflict, and presented a jury question. The rulings of the court, to which exceptions were reserved, are so clearly free from error we shall not discuss them. The evidence was ample to sustain the verdict and support judgment of conviction. No errors appearing in any ruling of the court or upon the record, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.. Affirmed. igu=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes