
    JOE DUCA et ux. v. STATE.
    No. A-3217
    Opinion Filed June 22, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied November 22, 1920.
    (192 Pac. 1105.)
    Appeal from County Court, Pittsburg County; S. F. Brown, Judge. Joe Duca and Mrs. > Joe Duca were convicted of violating the prohibition law, and-they appeal.
    Affirmed as to Mrs. Joe Duca, and reversed as to Joe Duca.
    W. N. Redwine, for plaintiff in error.
    S. P. Preeling, Atty. Gen., and W. G. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ^be State.
   PER OURIAM.

Joe Duca and Mrs. Joe Duca were jointly indicted by tbe grand jury for selling whisky to one Erank White. The cause was duly transferred from the district court to the county court. Upon their trial they were convicted, and in accordance with the verdict were each sentenced to he confined for!30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $50. Prom the judgments they appeal.-

The principal contention is that the evidence does not support the verdict. Prank White, the only witness for the state, testified that at the time alleged he was chief of police of Hartshorne, where the defendants lived, and at that time bought a pint of whisky from Mrs. Joe Duca and paid her $1.50 for it, and that the mayor of Hartshorne was present at the time. Pie was then, asked. “Was Joe Duca there?” and answered: “I don’t think he was. If he was I did not see him in the house.” The state rested, and the- defendant Joe Duca' moved the court to direct a verdict of acquittal, “for the reason there is not sufficient evidence to convict said Joe Duca.” As witness in their own behalf, the defendants each testified that they did not sell any whisky to Prank White.

Obviously, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of Joe Duca. While the testimony of the complaining witness that be bought! the whisky of Mrs. Joe Duca is contradicted by the testimony of both of the defendants, yet the jury werei the judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and they have seen fit to believe the complaining witness, -and'wei find no sufficient reason, to disturb their finding as to the defendant Mrs. Joe Duca.

Por the reason -stated, the judgment is reversed as-to Joe Duca and is affirmed as to Mrs. Joe Duca.  