
    (106 So. 680)
    EVERETT v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 171.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 15, 1925.)
    Intoxicating liquors <§=313! — Possession not affected by purpose for which mixture placed in barrel.
    Purpose for which mixture was placed in barrel would not affect defendant’s guilt vel non of possessing intoxicating liquors.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
    Dee Everett was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Charge 2, refused to defendant, is as follows:
    “ (2) I charge you that before you can convict this defendant you must be satisfied by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant put the mixture in the barrel for the purpose of making prohibited liquors or beverages, and must further be convinced by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that alcohol had been produced in the barrel at the time the officer is alleged to have poured out the liquid.”
    Ballard & Brassell, of Troy, for appellant.
    Counsel argue for error in the rulings of the court, but without citing authorities.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robert G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The affirmative charge was properly refused. Glaze v. State, 20 Ala. App. 7, 100 So. C29; Patterson v. State, 18 Ala. App. 55, 88 So. 360.
   RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition laws by having in his possession a quantity of beer containing alcohol. Everything connected with his trial was regular and without error. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict returned.

Charge 2, requested, by defendant, was properly refused. The purpose for which the mixture was placed in the barrel would not affect appellant’s guilt vel non of the offense charged.

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

Affirmed. 
      <§=3kor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     