
    (90 South. 42)
    ADAMS v. STATE.
    (8 Div. 795.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 10, 1921.)
    intoxicating liquors &wkey;>236(19) — Evidence held insufficient to support a conviction for distilling.
    Evidence in a prosecution for distilling intoxicating liquors held insufficient to support a conviction.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Harralson, Judge.
    Nesbit Adams was convicted of distilling, and he appealed.
    Reversed and remanded.
    The evidence tended to show that Adams was at home, in bed, when the officers visited his house; that some whisky was found buried in the garden, and some had been poured out; that a still was found in a ditch near by, -close to the line between Adams’ place and Woodham’s place.
    Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant.
    After discussing several matters, not touched on in the opinion, with citation of authority, counsel insist that under the Mitchell case, the facts did not warrant a conviction.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

We have carefully examined the evidence in this case, and are of the opinion that the evidence for the state is not sufficient upon which to base a conviction, and that the affirmative charge as requested by the defendant should have been given. Mitchell v. State, ante, p. 119, 89 South. 98.

For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  