
    17516.
    Lane v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1059, n. 39; p. 1180, n. 74.
    Decided August 4, 1926.
    Possessing intoxicating liquor; from Jenkins superior court-judge Strange. May 10, 1926.
    
      James A. Dixon, for plaintiff in error.
    
      John 0. Hollingsworth, solicitor-general, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. The conviction of the accused did not depend wholly upon circumstantial evidence, and therefore the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request.

2. There is no merit in the remaining special ground of the motion for a new trial, and the verdict was authorized by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworlh, JJ., concur.  