
    18039.
    Kerby v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1145, n. 51; p. 1217, n. 44, 45 ; 17 C. J. p. 203,' ji. 85,
   Bhoyles, C. J.

1. The 4th special ground of the motion for a new trial is disapproved by the trial judge.

2. The 5th special ground is not complete and understandable within itself, and can not be considered.

3. The 6th and 7th special grounds show that hearsay prejudicial to the accused was admitted in evidence over his timely and appropriate objections; and this error, under all the facts of the case, requires another trial.

4. The 8th special ground is without merit.

Decided May 11, 1927.

Possessing intoxicating liquor; from city court of Swainsboro— Judge Herrington. February 15, 1927.

The accusation charged that Kerby did possess and control a quantity of whisky and other intoxicating liquor. There was testimony of a “raid” and of finding “moonshine liquor” on the premises occupied by him. The grounds of the motion for new trial referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the syllabus were based on the admission of the following testimony, over the movant’s objection that it was hearsay and not within the knowledge of the witnesses: (5) “Yes, it was found on his land. I will swear positively to the best of my knowledge that the land belonged to the defendant. I never seen no deed; all I know is what other people say.” (6) “It had been reported to me that, he [defendant] was handling liquor down there, and that is how come me down there, and' I found it just like it was reported.” (7) “Some of the citizens reported to us that Mr. Kerby brought liquor back and forth on Saturday and Sunday to Nunez and sold it there.”

The 8th ground assigned error on the admission of the following testimony over the objection that it was irrelevant, tended to prejudice the jury against the defendant, and did not tend to show that he had possessed or controlled whisky: “Yes, these two men were sitting in the car, and they had some liquor in the car right at Mr. Kerby’s gate.”

Price, Spivey & Rdenfield, for plaintiff in error.

I. W. Rountree, solicitor, contra.

5. As another hearing of the case must occur, the sufficiency of the legal evidence to support the verdict is not now passed upon.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.  