We granted certiorari on the State's petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Dixon v. State, Ala. App., 115 So.2d 262, rendered after our reversal and remandment of the case to that court in a prior certiorari proceeding (Dixon v. State, Ala.Sup., 115 So.2d 269). On remandment, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to give the following written charge requested by the defendant, viz.:
It is our view that the charge is not an adequate statement of the applicable law and that its refusal was not error.
Code 1940, Tit. 29, § 102, as amended by Act No. 699, appvd. Sept. 17, 1953, Acts 1953, Vol. II, p. 954, provides as follows:
Code 1940, Tit. 29, § 134, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
It is to be noted that both § 102, as amended, and § 134, provide for a fee only when there is a conviction, while requested charge B-1 states the law to be that "the person or officer furnishing the proof" in a distilling or possession case is "entitled to collect a fee." In other words, charge B-1 fails to state the law in conformity with the above statutes authorizing the payment of fees to persons in prohibited liquor cases. What charge B-1 says, in effect, is that anyone furnishing proof is entitled to a fee whether there is a conviction or not. Such is not the law and the trial court should not be put in error for refusing to so charge the jury.
The State insists that there are also other reasons why the refusal of charge B-1 was not prejudicial error. In view of what has been said there is no need to discuss these other reasons.
Reversed and remanded.
All the Justices concur.