CUNNINGHAM v. STATE

(75 South. 816) CUNNINGHAM v. STATE. (7 Div. 443.) (Court of Appeals of Alabama. May 8, 1917.) 1. Intoxicating Liquors <&wkey;200 — Illegal Sale — Indictment—Sufficiency. An indictment charging that defendant sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, gave away or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors, is not demurrable. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 219, 220.] 2. Criminal Law <&wkey;292(2) — Defenses — Former Jeopardy — Sufficiency of Plea. A plea of former jeopardy failing to show whether the former trial was held for violation of a statute or a municipal ordinance is insufficient. [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 669.] Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; BOugb D. Merrill, Judge. Frank Cunningham was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and be appeals. Affirmed. Tbe indictment charges that defendant sold, offered for sale, kept for sale, gave away, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors. Tbe plea of former jeopardy was that defendant bad already been tried, convicted, and punished by tbe municipal court of tbe town of Montevallo for tbe same or substantially tbe same offense, on or about' February 12, 1914, for wbicb be was indicted in this court, wbicb said municipal court bad jurisdiction of said offense, and of this defendant, and defendant pleads said jeopardy and conviction in bar of this action. (Here follows judgment of municipal court showing a plea of guilty, and a fine of $50, on February 15, 1916.) Riddle & Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., and P. W. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for tbe State. [MAJORITY — BROWN, P. J.] BROWN, P. J. Tbe indictment is in tbe form prescribed by tbe statute and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled. Tbe defendant’s plea of former jeopardy was not sufficient, in that it did not show whether tbe former trial of tbe defendant was for the violation of the statute, or a municipal ordinance, and tbe demurrer thereto was sustained without error. Bell v. State, ante, p. 36, 75 South. 181. There is no error in tbe record, and tbe judgment of tbe circuit court is affirmed. Affirmed.