
    13354.
    Savage v. The State.
    Decided May 9, 1922.
    Accusation of possessing liquor; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Nunnally. February 2, 1922.
    From the evidence it appeared that in a three-room house rented and occupied by the defendant, who was a woman working at another place, officers in her absence found Seab Lynn in bed in the front bedroom, and found in the room an empty pint bottle which had recently contained liquor, and, in a slop-bucket in the-same room, about a half pint of liquor which had been poured’ into it, and found hid between a plank and the weatherboarding of the room two pints of liquor and several bottles which had recently contained liquor; and down stairs in the basement they found a large number of empty bottles of the same kind and a gallon jug with a little corn liquor in the bottom. It was testified that Seab Lynn, on seeing the officers approaching the house, slammed the door shut and fastened it, and that all the doors to the house were securely fastened; that the officers broke one of the doors open and went in the house, and saw him in bed with his clothes on and the cover pulled up over him. An officer testified that the defendant told him that another girl sta3red there some, and that her brother, a grown man, lived in the house with her. A woman testified that she had slept a few nights in this house, in the same bed with the defendant, and had never seen any liquor there; that Seab Lynn had been staying in a room at the house for several weeks, and the defendant’s brother stayed'in the house; that the defendant had been staying at Mrs. Burney’s at night, as Mrs. Burney was out of town, and she had charge of Mrs. Burney’s house. The defendant, in her statement at the trial, said that she knew nothing of any liquor being at her house; that she rented the house about a month before the officers went to it, and she had not been to it in two weeks before they went there, and that her brother slept in'the back room.
   Broyles, C. J.

The evidence adduced upon the trial of this case was not sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was

error. Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Porter & Mebane, for plaintiff in error.

James Maddox, solicitor, contra.  