
    (85 South. 879)
    WILLIAMS v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 686.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 18, 1920.)
    Criminal Law <&wkey;260 (11) — Conviction not Disturbed unless Palpably Contrary to Weight oe Evidence.
    Where defendant accused of violating the prohibition law, was tried by a court without a jury, the conviction will not be disturbed on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court having had the opportunity of observing the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses, unless its conclusion was palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
    tgzsFor other-cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robt. C. Brickell, Judge.
    Charlie Williams was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    R. E. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellant.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BRICKEN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of violating the prohibition law. 1-Ie was tried upon an original affidavit and before the court sitting without a jury. There were no exceptions reserved to any rulings of the court pending the entire trial, and the only question presented is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to authorize the judgment of conviction.

Upon an examination of fhe record we find that there was ample evidence which, if believed by the court, was sufficient upon which to predicate the judgment rendered.

The testimony was given ore tenus, the court below having the opportunity of hear.ing the testimony and observing the demean- or of the witnesses testifying. We are unable to say from the evidence in the record that the conclusion reached by the trial court is plainly and palpably contrary to the great weight of the evidence. In fact, the contrary appears to be true. It follows that the judgment of conviction rendered must be affirmed.

Affirmed.  