
    25706.
    Hale v. The State.
    Decided September 11, 1936.
    
      Duke Davis, for plaintiff in error.
    
      L. L. Meadors, solicitor, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of possessing whisky. His motion for new trial contained the usual general grounds only; and the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt. The eases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are differentiated by their facts from this case.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.  