Captain v. The State.
Violating Prohibition Law.
(Decided February 3, 1914.
Rehearing denied February 11, 1914.
64 South. 639.)
Intoxicating Liquors; Unlawful Possession; Affidavit; Jurisdiction. — Under section 32, Acts 1909, p. 92, a prosecution for violating the prohibition law, in the absence of an objection in the circuit court, may proceed to judgment upon the affidavit, without the filing of a statement of the cause of complaint, as required by section 6730, Code 1907, in trials de novo in that court; and the affidavit being sufficient in form and substance, gave the court jurisdiction.
Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.
Heard before Hon. M. Sollie.
Sarah Captain was convicted of violating the prohibition law and she appeals.
Affirmed.
C. S. McDowdell, Jr., for appellant.
No statement was filed by the solicitor of the cause of complaint, and there was no waiver of filing thereof. — Moss v. State, 42 Ala. 546; Spicer v. State, 69 Ala. 163; McGhee v. State, 22 South. 113; sec. 6730, Code 1907; Haynes v. State, 5 Ala. App. 167. Counsel discusses other assignments of error, but Avithout citation of authority.
B. C. Bricicell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Section 6730, Code 1907, is not applicable to trials for violation of the prohibition laAV, it having been superseded by section 32, Acts 1909, p. 92. — Fitzpatrick v. State, 169 Ala. 1; Sapp v. State, 2 Ala. App. 190. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense charged. — Wright v. State, 156 Ala. 108; Turner v. State, 99 Ala. 57; Grant v. State, 97 Ala. 35.
*168THOMAS, J.
The failure of the solicitor to file a statement as required by section 6730 of the Code is urged as error; but it was field, in tfie case of Anna Lee v. State, infra, 64 South. 637, not to constitute sucfi wfiere, as fiere, tfie prosecution was for a violation of tfie prohibition laws, and was begun by affidavit and warrant, and tfiere was no objection in tfie lower court to tfie failure of tfie solicitor to file sucfi statement. Tfie affidavit, upon wfiicfi tfie trial was fiad without objection, followed tfie form prescribed by law for charging tfie offense. Under section 32 of tfie Fuller Bill, this was sufficient to sustain tfie jurisdiction of tfie circuit court. — Anna Lee v. State, infra, 64 South. 637.
Tfie other questions raised by tfie record are so clearly without merit that they are not insisted upon in brief, are neither new nor novel, and are not of sucfi interest as to require discussion.
Tfie judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Affirmed.