Opinion
3 Div. 566.
January 10, 1928.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Conecuh County; John D. Leigh, Judge.
Jim Barlow was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Charge A, refused to defendant, is as follows:
"The court charges the jury that in weighing the testimony in this case you should weigh the testimony of the witness Wilson in the light of the fact that he was guilty of having prohibited liquors in his possession, and by giving the testimony as given he should receive immunity and not be prosecuted."
Hamilton Jones, of Evergreen, for appellant.
Charge A should have been given for defendant. Code 1923, §§ 4644, 5635; 1 R. C. L. 165, 166. See Davidson v. State, 33 Ala. 350. No complaint was filed by the solicitor, and the record is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and J. W. Brassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
There is no merit in the assignment that no complaint was filed by the solicitor. Code 1923, § 4646. Evidence by the party to whom defendant sold whisky was admissible. Charge A does not correctly state the law. Burt v. State, 20 Ala. App. 296, 101 So. 768.
It was unnecessary to file a complaint in the circuit court, but, on appeal from the county court, the prosecution might proceed under the original affidavit. Code 1923, § 4646.
The court may never tell the jury how they shall consider testimony. Hence appellant's written charge A was properly refused.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.