
    (110 So. 323)
    BATTLE v. STATE.
    (2 Div. 369.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Nov. 9, 1926.)
    Criminal law @=>995(3) — Judgment in criminal case need not specify offense clearly shown elsewhere in record.
    Judgment in criminal ease need not specify distinctly the offense of which defendant has been convicted, if other parts of record are clear in this respect.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; S. E. Hobbs, Judge.
    Roy Battle was convicted of unlawfully possessing a still, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen;, for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

The judgment omits a description of the offense except by reference to the indictment. While it is better form to do so, it is not necessary that the judgment in a criminal case specify distinctly the offense of which defendant has been convicted, if the other parts of the record are clear in this respect. Demolli v. United States, 144 F. 363, 75 C. C. A. 365, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 424, 7 Ann. Cas. 121.

Questions raised on the admission of evidence have been examined by us. The rulings of the court on these questions were either without error, or, if error, were not prejudicial to defendant’s rights.

The evidence adduced was sufficient to present a jury question.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <@3»Foi* other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     