
    (107 So. 42)
    RUTLEDGE v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 747.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Feb. 2, 1926.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;8!4(13)— Charge that law presumed husband’s possession of things in house properly refused as abstract and misleading.
    In prosecution for possession of prohibited liquors, requested charge that law presumed that things in house were in possession of husband, if living there at the time, held properly refused as abstract and misleading.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;789(4).
    In prosecution for possession of prohibited liquors, requested charge, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt that substance found contained alcohol, held properly refused, under Code 1923, § 4615.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County ; H. P. Heflin, Judge.
    
      Charlie Rutledge was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and she appeals.
    Affirmed.
    These charges were refused to defendant:
    <!(1) The court charges you that the husband is the head of the household, and the law presumes that that which is in the house is in the possession of the husband, provided he is living there at the time.”
    “(2) The court charges you that, unless the substance found there contained alcohol, and that proof thereof has convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt of such fact, you cannot convict the defendant.”
    F. H. Woodard, of Birminghani, for appellant.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robert G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Charge 1, requested by defendant, is abstract. Charge 2 is incorrect. Code 1923, § 4650.
   RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws, in that she did “have in her possession, etc., prohibited liquors,” etc. The evidence made a case for the jury. Code 1923, § 4650. There was no motion for a new trial.

Appellant’s requested written charge which we have numbered 1 was, if not faulty otherwise, abstract and misleading, and properly refused. The possession might have been in both the husband and the wife.

Her requested written charge which we have numbered 2 was properly refused. Code 1923, § 4615; Dees v. State, 75 So. 645, 16 Ala. App. 97.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  