
    Taggett v. City of Tuscaloosa.
    
      Violating Municipal Ordinance.
    
    (Decided January 14, 1915.
    67 South. 780.)
    1. Municipal Corporation; Ordinances; Violation; Other Offenses. —Evidence of a sale made by tbe defendant of a bottle of beer a few days prior to tbe time when her pi*emises were searched and a large quantity of bottles, empty and full, were found, was admissible in a prosecution for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting the selling or keeping of intoxicating liquors.
    2. Same. — A bottle of beer identified as the one sold to witness by defendant prior to the sale for which the prosecution was had was admissible in evidence.
    3. Same; Jury Question. — Where the evidence tended to support the charge, its weight and sufficiency was for the jury, and the court property refused to direct a verdict for the defendant.
    
      Appeal from. Tuscaloosa County Court.
    Heard before Hon. Henry B. Foster.
    Alice Taggett was convicted in tbe recorder’s court for violating a municipal ordinance of tbe city of Tuscaloosa, and sbe appealed to tbe county court where sbe was again convicted and brings her appeal here.
    Affirmed.
    Wrigpit & Fite, for appellant.
    Tbe same insistence on tbe same authorities are made here as are made by counsel in tbe case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra.
    
    Brown & Ward, for appellee.
    Counsel used same argument and authorities in this case as in tbe case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra.
    
   PELHAM, P. J.

Tbe points made against tbe ordinance, for a violation of which tbe defendant was tried and convicted, we have disposed of adversely to tbe appellant’s contentions in tbe case of Charlie Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa, infra, 67 South. 778.

Tbe court properly admitted evidence of a sale made by tbe defendant of a bottle of beer to one Crider a few days prior to tbe time when her premises were searched and a large quantity' of beer bottles, empty whisky cases, etc., together with a few full botles of beer and whisky, was found by tbe searching officers. The court limited tbe evidence of tbe sale as going alone to show an unlawful intent on tbe part of tbe defendant in having in her possession tbe prohibited liquors, and for that purpose it was admissible.—Allison v. State, 1 Ala. App. 206, 55 South. 453; Rosenberg v. State, 5 Ala. App. 196, 59 South. 366.

The bottle of beer was identified as tbe one sold to the witness by tbe defendant, and there was no error committed in permitting it to be introduced in evidence.—Harris v. State, 9 Ala. App. 87, 64 South. 352; Phillips v. State, 156 Ala. 140, 47 South. 245.

The tendencies of the evidence'supported the charge made against the defendant, and its weight and sufficiency, involving the question of her guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury (Tice v. State, 3 Ala. App. 164, 57 South. 506), and the court quite properly refused the general charge for the defendant and submitted the case to the jury.

Affirmed.  