
    (103 So. 240)
    BARRETT v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 258.)
    (Court of Appeals Of Alabama.
    March 17, 1925.)
    Criminal law &wkey;l 168(I) — Refusal of general affirmative charge no ground for complaint as to count of which defendant acquitted.
    Refusal of general affirmative charge is no ground for complaint as to a count of which defendant is acquitted.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; Charles P. Almon, Judge.
    
      Riley Barrett was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Williams & Chenault, of Russellville, for appellant.
    The jury is not authorized to convict on proof of possession of a part of a still. Wilson v. State, ante p. 62, 100 So. 914. Counsel discuss other rulings, but without citing additional authorities.
    Plarwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    A wide latitude is allowed on cross-examination. May v. State, 16 Ala. App. 541, 79 So. 677. An exception to the oral charge by reference merely is insufficient. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709. There is no reversible error in refusal of affirmative charge as to a count under which an acquittal is entered. Register v. State, 19 Ala. App. 11, 94 So. 778. A charge not predicated on the evidence is well refused. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179.
   RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of having in his possession a still, etc., and he appeals.

The indictment, trial, conviction, and appeal were all had and done prior to the going into effect of the Code of 1923. The law governing this case has been many times construed and applied by this court. No useful purpose could be served by going over again its principles or provisions.

The case, under the evidence adduced, was properly submitted to the jury for its decision on the facts. The oral charge of the court, in connection with the written charges given at defendant’s request, fully, fairly, and legally defined the issues. We think there was nothing in said oral charge of which defendant could properly complain, but, even so, defendant’s exceptions- regarding same are not presented in a manner calling for our review. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709.

The exceptions reserved during the cross-examination of the witness Shotts are plainly without merit. May v. State, 16 Ala. App. 541, 79 So. 677.

Refused charge 1 is covered in substance by the court’s oral charge, and refused charge 2 was properly refused, among other reasons, for that it did not require the finding of the jury to be based upon the evidence. Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179.

The defendant cannot complain of the refusal of the general affirmative charge as to count 1, because by the verdict of the jury he was acquitted of the offense described therein. Register v. State, 19 Ala. App. 11, 94 So. 778.

Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the case will be affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <3&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     