
    13752.
    FLINT v. THE STATE.
    Presence of a person at a distillery where intoxicating liquor is being made, and his flight on seeing an officer approaching, may, when not satisfactorily explained,* authorize a jury to find him guilty of making such liquor. Whether an attempted explanation of such presence and conduct is reasonable and’ satisfactory is a question for the jury.
    It is not cause for a new trial that the judge, in complying with a request of the jury to recharge them “ on some points of law,” did not recharge them on circumstantial evidence.
    Decided November 16, 1922.
    Indictment for making liquor; from Wilkes superior court — Judge Shurley. May 20, 1922.
    
      Hugh E. Oombs, for plaintiff in error.
    
      M. L. Felts, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

1. Plaintiff in error was convicted of manufacturing liquor. The evidence shows that he and another were at a distillery that was in operation, and both fled when they saw the officers approaching. Plaintiff in error was arrested the next day at his home about a half-mile from the distillery. In his statement to the jury he attempted to explain his presence at the distillery. Whether this explanation was reasonable and satisfactory was a question for the jury; and the jury having rejected it as unsatisfactory to them, and their finding having been approved by the trial judge, this court has no authority to interfere. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 29 Ga. App. 173 (114 S. E. 584).

2. Where the judge, in his original instructions to the jury, charged them fully on circumstantial evidence, and the jury, after considering the case, asked to be recharged “ upon some points of law,” it is not cause for a new trial that the judge in recharging, did not repeat instructions on circumstantial evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.  