
    JOHN DOLEZAL et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-5874.
    Opinion Filed July 16, 1927.
    (257 Pac. 1117.)
    J. L. Trevathan, for plaintiffs in error.
    Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   EDWARDS, J.'

The plaintiffs in error,' hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Canadian county on a charge of having the possession of mash fit for distillation and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and to sefve 30 days in tbe county jail.

The principal contention made in the' brief is that, the evidence being circumstantial, it is not sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and not sufficient to'sustain the verdict. Tim case rests on the testi-móny of two officé'rs, 'who,1 With a search warrant, went to the residence of one Berry Nutt, in ah isolated' and out of the way community and difficult of access, in the southwest part of Canadian county near the ,brakes x>f| . the Canadian, and. there .found Nutt in a thoroughly intoxicated condition. They made a search’and ,^oun^,, no. .liquor about the premises, and while there defendants approached through the pasture in' a Ford car from the''direction of some waste land alopg. the. river. The officers, approached them, and the evidence indicates £bat,they ’started >tq, flee from the officers but were stopped. One of tbe officers f dllowed the car track'in’the direction from - which 'it had come to a fence on the river bank and there discovered where the car had stopped. About ten steps from this point, across the fence in waste land, they found a pump and six 5-gallon glass jugs, and about 30 steps from where the car stopped they found 12 barrels of mash, and leading from the point where the car stopped to the point where this was found were the tracks of some person or persons. Some loose bran was found in the back part of the car. Neither of the defendants took the stand or offered any testimony in their defense. The evidence is not strong, but, in the absence of any. explanation, is sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment.

The case is affirmed.

DOYLE, P. J., concurring.

DAVENPORT, J., absent, not participating.  