Dortch appeals from a judgment resting on a verdict finding him guilty of assault with intent to murder. The trial judge sentenced him to five years imprisonment.
On cross-examination the solicitor asked one of Dortch's character witnesses:
* * * * * *
In argument the solicitor stated, "And you have a known bootlegger over a period of years." To this defense counsel objected. Whereupon the solicitor rejoined, "Your own witness states that was his reputation."
Whereupon the court overruled the objection.
And at the close of the solicitor's argument, the defense counsel renewed his objection and moved the court for a mistrial. This motion was denied.
In Grimes v. State, 23 Ala.App. 511, 128 So. 120; Wilbanks v. State, 28 Ala.App.
The claim of Dortch being a bootlegger rests solely upon his repute as to making whiskey. There was no evidence of Dortch handling whiskey as a bootlegger.
A bootlegger is a vendor of prohibited liquors, not a distiller. Ballard v. State, 23 Ala.App. 50, 121 So. 502; Grimes v. State, supra. A quick look in Words and Phrases supports this distinction.
The judgment below is due to be reversed and the cause remanded. See authorities in Nix v. State, 32 Ala.App. 136, 22 So.2d 449.
Reversed and remanded.