
    10718.
    PERKINS v. THE STATE.
    A conviction of the offense of having possession of intoxicating liquor was authorized by the evidence.
    Decided November 4, 1919.
    Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Mullen—Judge Dekle. June 2, 1919.
    A deputy sheriff testified, that he broke the lock of the defendant’s smoke-house and discovered there a keg containing twenty or thirty gallons of'corn beer, and found also a bottle which he smelled and which “had had moonshine liquor in it;” there was no whisky in the bottle; “there may have been a drop or two.” He further testified: The beer “was intoxicating. It was ready for the still; it was working and beading over the top, strong as I ever saw. . . I-did not taste this beer. I say this beer was intoxicating because I have seen whisky run and I know when beer is right to make. I have seen it made and I know corn beer will make you drunk. I know that this corn beer would make you drunk. When I poured this beer out corn, syrup, and water were in it. It was pure corn, whole grain. I never noticed anything else in it. I don’t think there was any meal or mixture in it. Some make it with corn and some with meal. I saw several bottles in there and also some jugs. We did not examine all of them.” There was no other witness. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said he would not deny that the witness “found a barrel with some syrup and corn in it; it was there in the barrel ■. . fixed for feeding” his hogs; he had been feeding the hogs on it for three months. “They said it would make you drunk;” he did not know about that.
    
      A. S. Anderson, E. G. Weathers, for plaintiff in error.
    
      William Woodrum, solicitor, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

While the evidence in this case is rather weak, the court cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict is without evidence to support it. “The verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but, whenever there is any evidence, however sligbt> to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” Bradham v. State, 21 Ga. App. 510 (94 S. E. 618), and citations.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.  