
    (106 So. 679)
    SMITH v. STATE.
    (5 Div. 597.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 15, 1925.)
    I. Intoxicating liquors <®=238(5) — Refusal of affirmative charge not error, where conflicting evidence raised question for jury.
    In liquor prosecution, where defendant denied making sales of liquor as testified to by state witness, conflict in evidence presented jury question; hence refusal of affirmative charge was not error.
    2. Criminal law <©=1056(1) — No question is presented for consideration ,of Court of Appeals, where no exception was reserved to any portion of oral charge.
    Where no exception was reserved to any portion of oral charge, no question on appeal is presented for consideration of Court of Appeals.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County ; S. L. Brewer, Judge.
    Rowland Smith was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    I-Iooten &" Hooten, of Roanoke, for appellant.
    Cqunsel argue for error in the rulings treated, and cite Mann v. State, 20 Ala. App. 540, 103 So. 604; Miller v. State, 20 Ala. App. 562, 103 So. 916.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robert G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    An exception is necessary to review the oral charge. Forsythe v. State, 19 Ala. App. 669, 100 So. 198; Anderson v. State, 200 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171; Russell v. State, 19 Ala. App. 425, 97 So. 845; Ex parte State, 204 Ala. 389, 85 So. 785.
   BRICKEN, P. J.

Appellant was indicted for the offense of violating the prohibition laws of the state. He was convicted, and from the judgment of conviction appealed.

The state insisted, and offered evidence tending to sustain the insistence, that the defendant sold whisky to the state witness examined' upon the trial of this case. No question or dispute exists about venue or time, The defendant denied that he made the sales of whisky as testified to by the state witness and offered other evidence tending to sustain him in this denial. The conflict in the evidence presented a jury question; therefore there was no error in the refusal of the affirmative charge requested in writing by defendant.

There was ample evidence in this case to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction.' The several exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence are each so clearly free from prejudicial error we shall refrain from any discussion in this connection.

The oral charge of the court was fair to defendant and was able and explicit. Moreover, no exception was reserved to any portion of the oral charge; therefore no question is presented for consideration.

The ruling of the court on motion for new trial is not presented.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.  