Speagle v. State

Counsel

Ross, Bumgardner, Ross Ross, of Bessemer, for appellant. To require defendant to answer the question whether he was in the liquor business was prejudicial to his rights. Pointer v. State, 24 Ala. App. 23 , 129 So. 787 ; Brasher v. State, 22 Ala. App. 79 , 112 So. 535 ; Eden v. State, 24 Ala. App. 37 , 129 So. 797 . The excepted to portion of the oral charge was erroneous. It is not within the province of the court to make any statement to the jury as to what the credible evidence in the case is. There was no foundation for such charge from the evidence or the law. Haithcock v. State, 23 Ala. App. 460 , 126 So. 890 . Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos. Seay Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. The question to the defendant whether he was in the liquor business was rendered harmless by his answer. Murray v. State, 17 Ala. App. 253 , 84 So. 393 ; Locklear v. State, 205 Ala. 236 , 87 So. 712 ; Huston v. State, 21 Ala. App. 472 , 109 So. 384 . That part of the oral charge to which defendant excepted was clearly correct, especially when read in connection with the remainder of the charge.