Hope v. State

The indictment was in two counts. The first charged manufacturing whisky and the second unlawful possession. The verdict of the jury convicting the defendant under the second count was equivalent to an acquittal of the charge under the first count of the indictment, so that it will he unnecessary for us to pass upon any question presented by the record and relating solely to the first count. Tuggle v. State, 19 Ala. App. 541, 98 So. 815.

It was proper for the court to allow the solicitor to propound 'questions to the witness Gillespie qualifying him as to his knowledge of whisky, stills, beer,…