
    (110 So. 564)
    THOMASSON v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 310.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Nov. 26, 1926.)
    Certiorari &wkey;>68 — As to questions involving inquiries of fact, judgment of Court of Appeals is not reviewable on petition for cer-tiorari.
    Supreme Court will not review judgment of Court of Appeals, as to questions involving inquiries of fact, on petition for certiorari.
    Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
    Perry Thomasson was convicted of possessing a still, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction (21 Ala. App. 562, 110 So. 563), and defendant petitions for certiorari.
    Writ denied.
    
      J. Morgan Prestwood, of Andalusia, for petitioner.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for tlie State.
   PER CURIAM.

As far as we have been able to review tbe opinion of tbe Court of Appeals, we bave found no error. We bave been unable to review most of tbe questions raised by tbis application, for tbe reason that sucb review would involve inquiries of fact, sucb as tbis court bas heretofore in numerous cases refused to indulge. Postal Telegraph, etc., v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur. 
      <§=oFor other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and-Indexes
     