
    CLYDE BOTTOMS v. STATE.
    No. A-7959.
    Sept. 25, 1931.
    (3 Pac. [2d] 458.)
    Darnell & LaRue, for plaintiff in error.
    J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was convicted of transporting intoxicating liquor, and was sentenced to pay a fine of |200 and to be imprisoned in the county jail for 60 days, and has appealed.

The testimony on bebalf of tbe state tends to show that tbe defendant was driving along tbe public highway, and tbe officers followed, him; after they bad followed him for some time, tbe officers claim tbe defendant stopped bis car and set a carton by tbe side of tbe road and drove on; the officers followed him for some distance and arrested him; at the time of tbe arrest the officers bad no knowledge as to what was in tbe carton claimed by them to have been put out of tbe car by the defendant. Tbe officers claim that after they took tbe defendant back to where tbe carton was they examined it and it contained whisky.

The defendant denied any knowledge of the whisky and stated positively be did not put tbe whisky out of bis car. Several witnesses testified in tbe defendant’s bebalf as to bis previous good character; that be had never been charged with an offense before; it was after dark when the officers followed tbe defendant, and they claim they were close enough to him to see him stop the car and put out the carton, and that he drove away before they caught up with him. The jury heard the testimony and decided the facts against the defendant. There is a conflict in the testimony, but this court will not undertake to settle the conflict. That was a question for the jury.

In view of the previous good character of the defendant and the conflict in the testimony, the judgment in this case seems to be excessive and should be modified to imprisonment in the county jail for thirty days, and a fine of $50 and costs, and as modified the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.  