
    GUS SPRADLING v. STATE.
    No. A-7712.
    Opinion Filed March 14, 1931.
    Rehearing Denied March 28, 1931.
    (296 Pac. 1004.)
    Wilkinson & Wilkinson, for plaintiff in error.
    The Attorney General, for the State.
   CHAPPELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted in the county court of Stephens county of the crime of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed by the jury at a fine of $300 and imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days.

The information charged the defendant with the sale of intoxicating liquor to one Earl Clark, who was called as a witness by the state. Clark testified that he went to the home of defendant about 11:30 at night for the purpose of buying whisky, if defendant had any; that he drove up to the corner of defendant’s house, at the dining room door, and got out and went to the screen door and knocked on the door and said, “Hello this is Earl Clark, I want a little bottle, like that”; that he stood outside of the screen door and somebody got up from around in the house and threw a flash-light in his face he supposed to see who it was; that then they turned the light out and went into another room and he stepped inside the screen; that he knew tbe defendant and bad been there before delivering groceries and got a drink; that in about a minute somebody banded bim a bottle and be banded them $2, and when be got out to tbe car tbe officer jerked tbe wbisky out of bis band.

Tbe sheriff testified that be saw Clark come out of tbe bouse with a bottle in bis band, and took it away from bim, and that it contained wbisky; that be bad a search warrant for the place, and back of tbe henhouse be found two half-gallon jars of wbisky.

Tbe defendant took tbe stand and denied tbe sale of whisky; said his wife was up and around tbe bouse, and that if she delivered any wbisky to Clark be did not know anything about it, but admitted that be bad twice pleaded guilty in tbe federal court to tbe sale of intoxicating liquor.

While tbe evidence is wholly circumstantial, it is sufficient to support tbe verdict of tbe jury.

For tbe reason stated, tbe cause is affirmed.

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