Wheat v. State

One count in the indictment charged the defendant with making whisky. It was therefore competent, under the ruling in the case of Hussey v. State, 87 Ala. 121, 6 South. 420, for the defendant to show, as he attempted to do by the witness Robertson, after he had offered testimony that his general character was good, that he (Robertson) had never heard of the defendant making any whisky. As is stated in Hussey’s Case, supra:

“To say his character is good is a positive expression of the fact. To say that the witness has never heard anything against his character, as to the particular phase in…