
    (106 So. 894)
    CLARK v. STATE.
    (5 Div. 547.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 26, 1926.)
    Criminal law <@=3881(2) — indictment held insufficient to support conviction for distilling.
    Indictment, alleging accused “did manufacture, sell, give away, or have in possession a still, apparatus, appliance, or a device or substitute therefor, to be used for the' purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors,” held not to support conviction for offense of “making prohibited liquor.”
    Appeal from Circuit Court) Coosa County; E. S. Lyman, Judge.
    Vernon Clark was convicted of distilling, and he appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Thos. A. Curry, of Clanton, for appellant.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State..
    No briefs reached the Reporter.
   RICE, J.

Appellant was adjudged guilty of the offense of “making prohibited liquor)” and the indictment contained in the record charges, in a single count, only that he “did manufacture, sell, give away, or have in possession a still, apparatus, appliance, or a device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages, against, etc.”

Manifestly the judgment of conviction cannot stand, and the same is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded. 
      <g=jFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     