
    (75 South. 701)
    IRWIN v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 524.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 29, 1917.)
    Criminal Law <§=>719(1) — Argument of Counsel — Evidence.
    In a prosecution of a defendant who was seven-eighths Indian, for keeping intoxicating liquor for sale, it was error for the solicitor to state in his closing argument that, “A negro’s appetite for liquor is not a circumstance” to the appetite of an Indian, where such statement was not sustained by the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1669.]
    Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Morgan County; Thomas W. Wert, Judge.
    Dock Irwin was convicted of keeping liquor for sale, and appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    G. O. Chenault, of Albany, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   SAMFORD, J.

The court did not commit error in its various rulings on the evidence. But it having been testified by some of the witnesses that the defendant was seven-eighths Indian, the solicitor, in his closing argument, said:

“Did you ever hear how an Indian liked liquor? A negro’s appetite for liquor is not a circumstance to it.”

This remark was improper, was not sustained by the evidence, and should have been excluded in defendant’s motion. Sykes v. State, 151 Ala. 80, 44 South. 398; Roden v. State, 3 Ala. App. 202, 58 South. 72.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

•Reversed and remanded.  