Berry v. State

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully being in possession, etc., of a still, etc., to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors, etc.

There was no error in allowing the state’s witness Smith to testify that the still in question was a “complete distilling outfit.” He was properly qualified as an expert. Weeks v. State, 21 Ala. App. 397, 109 So. 117; Horton v. State, 20 Ala. App. 55, 100 So. 620.

What we have said above is true as to the testimony of this same witness that “(prohibited) liquor 'could have been made on that outfit.” Authorities supra.

Appellant’s…