Appellant was convicted of the offense of violating our laws known as “Prohibition Laws” by illegally having in his pos *393 session beer containing more than the permissible per cent, of alcohol.

The State’s testimony was undisputed; and tended to make out a clear case of guilt against the defendant (appellant)— i. e., guilt of the offense charged.

Appellant introduced testimony tending to show that he bore a good character; but this court has ruled that such testimony, alone, is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. Witt v. State, 5 Ala.App. 137, 59 So. 715.

There was hence no error in the trial court’s giving to the jury the requested general affirmative charge with hypothesis to find in favor of the State — though such practice is dangerous.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.