Martin v. State

This defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for violating the prohibition law, and appeals.

The state contended that within the period of time covered by the indictment the defendant sold one quart of whisky to the state witness Medlock. There was ample evidence; if believed by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, upon which to predicate a verdict of guilty.

Only two exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court upon this trial. The witness Gullatt, while testifying in behalf of defendant on cross-examination, volunteered the statement that “he did not think that the defendant was…