Davis v. State

RICE, Judge.

The law ought to be consistent. We have reaffirmed our holding in Dickey v. State, 22 Ala. App. 375, 115 So. 848, more than once. See Shepard’s Alabama Citations.

There, we held that a conviction such as the instant one could not be sustained upon mere proof of the accused’s presence at a still, etc., not on his premises, and that he was seen to catch some of the whisky being manufactured in a bottle, taste it, and run away upon the approach of the officers.

Here, the only way the state would have us sustain the conviction is by testimony tending to show that appellant was present…