
    (98 South. 915)
    (6 Div. 249.)
    MALONE v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Jan. 22, 1924.)
    Criminal law <®=^875(2) — Verdict held insuffi-, cient basis for judgment of guilt.
    A' verdict, “We, the jury, find the defendant as charged in count 2 of the indictment,” held' insufficient upon which to base a judgment of guilt.
    Appeal- from Circuit Court, Pickens County; R. I. Jones, Judge.
    Alford Malone was convicted of possessing a still, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Jones, Jones & Van d.e Graff, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant. *
    The verdict is void for uncertainty, and will not support a judgment. Harwell v. State, 22 Tex. App. 251, 2 S. W. 606; 12 Cyc. 690; Clay v. State, 43 Ala. 350; Huffman v. State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 South. 28; Allen v. State, 52 Ala. 391; St. Clair v. Caldwell & Riddle, 72 Ala. 527; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325; Alexander v. Wheeler, 69 Ala. 332; City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 South. 25, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 13.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   SAMEORD, J.

The verdict of the jury, as shown by the minute entry, is: “We, the jury, find the defendant as charged in count 2 of the indictment.” This court, in Huckabaa v. State, 95 South. 587, was of the opinion that the verdict was sufficient upon which to base a judgment of guilt, but on certiorari the Supreme Court (Ex parte I-Iuckabaa, 209 Ala. 4, 95 South. 42) held to the contrary, and perhaps correctly so. The latter opinion must govern, and for that error the judgment is reversed and the'cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded. 
      
       Ante, p. 11.
     