Minirth v. State, 40 Ala. App. 527, 117 So.2d 355. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. Mitchell v. State, 38 Ala. App. 546, 89 So.2d 238; Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702; Allen v. State, 26 Ala. App. 195, 155 So. 721. PRICE, Judge.

Hill v. State, 20 Ala. App. 197, 101 So. 298; Edson v. State, 134 Ala. 50, 32 So. 308; Morris v. State, Ala., 39 So. 608. Where evidence is in conflict question of defendant's guilt is for the jury. Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702; Able v. State, 27 Ala. App. 591, 176 So. 836. One in possession of parts of still may be convicted if parts are suitable for making alcoholic beverages. Lindsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 494, 93 So. 331; Bradley v. State, supra. Portion of verdict fixing punishment in contravention of statute may be treated as surplusage. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 328; Tit. 29, § 131; Lowery v. State, 33 Ala. App. 401, 34 So.2d 191; Freeman v. State, 151 Ala. 10, 44 So. 46. Corpus delicti was established by possession of parts of still, presence of defendant at still and other evidence.

Where there is a conflict in the evidence, some of it showing defendant's guilt, the question is properly submitted to the jury. Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702. While mere presence at a still does not warrant conviction of possession, any acts showing dominion by defendant of the still will support a conviction. Rikard v. State, 31 Ala. App. 374, 18 So.2d 435; Id., 245 Ala. 677, 18 So.2d 436; Vandiver v. State, 37 Ala. App. 526, 73 So.2d 566; Id., 261 Ala. 700, 73 So.2d 572; Hudson v. State, 249 Ala. 372, 31 So.2d 774. One in possession of parts of a still may be convicted if the parts in his possession are suitable for making alcoholic liquors or beverages. Lindsey v. State, 18 Ala. App. 494, 93 So. 331; Bradley v. State, supra; Nugent v. State, 28 Ala. App. 182, 181 So. 707; Allen v. State, 26 Ala. App. 195, 155 So. 721.

There was no evidence that the still was a whiskey still or a still used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquor, or was capable of being so used. It was error therefore to refuse the affirmative charge requested by defendant. Funderberg v. State, 22 Ala. App. 363, 115 So. 765; Young v. State, 28 Ala. App. 491, 188 So. 270; Chaney v. State, 21 Ala. App. 625, 111 So. 188; Brock v. State, 19 Ala. App. 124, 95 So. 559; Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702; Tinker v. State, 24 Ala. App. 601, 139 So. 575. The motion for new trial was due defendant, there being no sufficient evidence to show his possession of the alleged still. Jones v. State, 24 Ala. App. 603, 139 So. 832; Echols v. State, 24 Ala. App. 352, 135 So. 410; Martin v. State, 21 Ala. App. 230, 106 So. 873.

Where there is some evidence that accused is guilty of violating prohibition laws and there is a conflict of evidence, a question for the jury is created. Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702. Even though mere presence at a still will not warrant conviction, any acts showing dominion or interest may be taken as sufficient upon which to base a verdict of guilt. Mitchell v. State, 38 Ala. App. 546, 89 So.2d 238; Rikard v. State, 31 Ala. App. 374, 18 So.2d 435; Id., 245 Ala. 677, 18 So.2d 436; Vandiver v. State, 37 Ala. App. 526, 73 So.2d 566; Id., 261 Ala. 700, 73 So.2d 572; Lock v. State, 21 Ala. App. 81, 105 So. 431.

Where there is a conflict in the evidence the court will not be put in error for refusing the affirmative charge. Gibson v. State, 25 Ala. App. 197, 143 So. 207; Hill v. State, 28 Ala. App. 469, 187 So. 872: Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702; Nolly v. State, 35 Ala. App. 79, 43 So.2d 841. CARR, Presiding Judge.

Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542; Goodwin v. State, 102 Ala. 87, 15 So. 571. Where evidence presented by the State is sufficient to afford a circumstantial inference adverse to defendant's innocence, a directed verdict in defendant's behalf is properly refused. Hardin v. State, 31 Ala. App. 303, 15 So.2d 632; Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702. HARWOOD, Judge.

Clearly a jury question was posed, and the defendant was not due the affirmative charge. Smith v. State, 21 Ala. App. 460, 109 So. 294; Rikard v. State, 31 Ala. App. 374, 18 So.2d 435; Bradley v. State, 31 Ala. App. 475, 18 So.2d 702. The record on this appeal is not voluminous, and there are comparatively few questions presented for review.