
    ROY PARKER et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-6463.
    Opinion Filed July 3, 1929.
    (279 Pac. 362.)
    Criswell & Billingsley, for plaintiffs in error.
    Homer H. Bishop, Co. Atty., for the State.
   CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were convicted in the county court of Seminole county on a charge of unlawful possession of whisky mash fit for distillation into com whisky and each sentenced to pay a fine of $50, and each to be imprisoned in tbe county jail for 30 days. Tbe motion for new trial being overruled, tbe case is now in this court on appeal.

It is only necessary to consider one question, and that is, Is tbe evidence sufficient to support tbe verdict of tbe jury? Tbe state called, as witnesses, W. C. Montgomery and W. G. Nelms. These witnesses testified, in substance, that they found four barrels of masb in a small ravine about two miles from tbe borne of tbe defendant Hoy Parker; that tbig masb wag ripe and ready to run. Tbe witnesses waited near tbe masb until dark, when they saw two men approaching. When tbe men were within about 15 feet of one of tbe officers, be threw a flash-light in their faces and commanded them to bait. Immediately tbe men began to run and escaped from tbe officers. Thé officers found two caps supposed to have been dropped by tbe fleeing men. Tbe next morning tbe officers went to tbe home of the defendant Parker and claimed to have followed tracks from tbe home of Parker back to tbe masb, but there was no showing that these tracks were tbe tracks of either one of tbe defendants, although tbe officers did testify that tbe defendants were the men who ran when they ordered them to halt. The officer Nelms testified as follows:

“Q. You don’t know whether these 2 negro boys you saw there that night bad anything to do with that masb? A. No, sir.”

That, in substance, is all the evidence offered by tbe state. This masb being found in a small branch in an out of the way place, and, there being no evidence to show that these negro boys bad any connection whatever with tbe masb, we are unable to see bow there is any evidence to connect tbe defendants with tbe possession of tbe same. The fact that tbe defendants were crossing tbe field and happened to come near the place where the mash was concealed was a suspicious circumstance. When the officers suddenly rose from behind the bank in the dark and threw a flash-light in the face of the defendant Chandler and commanded him to halt, the defendant used his legs and not his head and got out of there as fast as he could. The other defendant dived over the bank and disappeared in the darkness. Any one who knows a negro will readily understand that the defendants did the natural thing a negro would do under the circumstances — ran.

So long as county attorneys insist on prosecuting cases with no sufficient evidence as in this case, and so long as trial courts overrule demurrers to the evidence and motions for new trial on the ground of insufficient evidence, just so long will it be necessary for appellate courts to protect the liberty of defendants. These men are evidently two black farmer boys without friends or prestige, but their legal rights are as sacred before the law as the most powerful citizen in the state.

The cause is reversed, because there is no competent evidence tending to connect the defendants with the crime charged. The trial court is directed to dismiss the case.

EDWARDS, P. J., and DAVENPORT, J., concur.  