Bishop v. State

The defendant, appellant, was convicted of manufacturing prohibited liquors and of having in his possession a still, etc. The defendant’s demurrers to the second count of the indictment on the ground that no particular description of the still, or substitute or device, was shown, and that the indictment contained disjunctive averments, were properly overruled. Barnes v. State, 18 Ala. App. 344, 92 South. 15; Reese v. State, 18 Ala. App. 357, 92 South. 77.

Mrs. Tom Bannister, a witness for defendant, testified on cross-examination, with- v out objection, as follows:

“My husband was away…