
    (97 South. 124)
    (4 Div. 889.)
    CATRETT v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 1923.)
    Intoxicating liquors <&wkey;i23l — Testimony as to kind of beer found at still admissible.
    In a prosecution for the manufacture of whisky, testimony that the beer found at the still was the kind of beer from which rum is made was relevant as descriptive of the beer found at the still.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; Arthur B. Poster, Judge.
    William Catrett was convicted of manufacturing whisky, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Harwell 6. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

The only exception reserved on the trial was to the court’s ruling in permitting the state’s witness Eloyd to testify that the beer found at the still was the “kind of beer of which they make rum.” This was a fact descriptive of the beer found at the still being operated, and was relevant.

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

Affirmed.  